166 réponses à ce sujet

[Zanallen]

I have been seeing this spouted about here and there on the forums quite a bit lately. "Oh, Bioware made DA2 to just to make some quick money and cash in on Origins' success." Frankly, I don't even understand how someone could think that was true. It is asinine and really does Bioware a diservice.

Look, the fact of the matter is, if Bioware wanted to make a quick and easy sequel, they would have made Dragon Age: Origins 2. They already had the data from Origins so why change anything if they just wanted to throw out a game for some fast cash? Why alter the engine? Why change game mechanics? Why change the art style? All those things cost time and money that they wouldn't have needed to do if they just wanted to trick Origins fans into buying a crappy sequel.

If Bioware had wanted to make a quick and easy sequel, they would have done it much like Awakening. Keep the core mechanics intact, keep the engine and art style. Hell, keep the Warden (Orlesian or Fereldan) so you don't need to come up with a story for a new PC. Keep the majority of the companions and NPCs to cut back on new models. Keep the sound track. Keep the game set in Ferelden so you can reuse a good number of location assets. Then all Bioware would need to do would be to create a few new NPCs, maybe a new companion or two and a couple new locations. Then comes the story. Hell, the darkspawn make great enemies. Why not have Morrigan's ritual awaken two archdemons? If the warden refused, maybe she tried anyway and the failure caused the archdemons to awaken? Super Blight, baby!

And thus you have a quick and dirty sequel that requires very little work on Bioware's part.

Instead, Bioware decided to change things, to try and improve the game and make a more enjoyable experience. Did they succeed? Debateable. However, the point is that they tried. They didn't sit on their laurels and rehash the same crap over and over again. They were ambitious, overly so whjen you consider how little time they actually had to make the game. I can't fault them for that.

[FieryDove]

This topic will not end well.

So...I might as well add fuel:

---
Zur: Sure thing. I'm actually really anxious for the game right now, so I can pop it in and start playing. I'm really looking forward to see it. I know there are a few bugs that still need to be fixed. Unlike other titles from Bioware, this [score] was kind of a rush job. EA really wanted to capitalize on the success of Origins, so the game was really being pushed hard to be released now.
---

http://music.ign.com.../1154594p1.html

Now what I think. I think Bioware will make the best games they can given the time and resources they are allowed.

[Dormiglione]

Zanallen wrote...

Instead, Bioware decided to change things, to try and improve the game and make a more enjoyable experience. Did they succeed? Debateable. However, the point is that they tried. They didn't sit on their laurels and rehash the same crap over and over again. They were ambitious, overly so whjen you consider how little time they actually had to make the game. I can't fault them for that.

So you say that DAO is crap?

[Zanallen]

Dormiglione wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

Instead, Bioware decided to change things, to try and improve the game and make a more enjoyable experience. Did they succeed? Debateable. However, the point is that they tried. They didn't sit on their laurels and rehash the same crap over and over again. They were ambitious, overly so whjen you consider how little time they actually had to make the game. I can't fault them for that.

So you say that DAO is crap?

Did I say that? No. But if they made a second game that was essentially just DA:O with nothing or very little that was new, that would be crap.

[Zanallen]

FieryDove wrote...

This topic will not end well.

So...I might as well add fuel:

---
Zur: Sure thing. I'm actually really anxious for the game right now, so I can pop it in and start playing. I'm really looking forward to see it. I know there are a few bugs that still need to be fixed. Unlike other titles from Bioware, this [score] was kind of a rush job. EA really wanted to capitalize on the success of Origins, so the game was really being pushed hard to be released now.
---

http://music.ign.com.../1154594p1.html

Now what I think. I think Bioware will make the best games they can given the time and resources they are allowed.

That doesn't change the fact that the absolute easiest, cheapest and quickest game that they could have made would be DA:O 2.

[Dormiglione]

Zanallen wrote...

Dormiglione wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

Instead, Bioware decided to change things, to try and improve the game and make a more enjoyable experience. Did they succeed? Debateable. However, the point is that they tried. They didn't sit on their laurels and rehash the same crap over and over again. They were ambitious, overly so whjen you consider how little time they actually had to make the game. I can't fault them for that.

So you say that DAO is crap?

Did I say that? No. But if they made a second game that was essentially just DA:O with nothing or very little that was new, that would be crap.

You didnt say that, but you implied it with your post. Lets assume Bioware had made DAO2, same content length like DAO and had spent 1-2 years more as for DA2 to make DAO2.
Do you think that DAO2 would have had the same backlash?

[Zanallen]

Dormiglione wrote...

You didnt say that, but you implied it with your post. Lets assume Bioware had made DAO2, same content length like DAO and had spent 1-2 years more as for DA2 to make DAO2.
Do you think that DAO2 would have had the same backlash?

We are assuming that Bioware spent 1-2 more years to make the game? So not just 18 months? Why? If DA2 had 1-2 more years of development, it wouldn't be receiving any where near the backlash that it currently is. The comparison makes no sense.

And I didn't imply a damn thing. I said, quite clearly, that the cheapest and easiest sequel that they could have made would be one with no real changes from DA:O. Fact. No real changes = cheaper and easier development.

[FieryDove]

Zanallen wrote...

That doesn't change the fact that the absolute easiest, cheapest and quickest game that they could have made would be DA:O 2.

I disagree. DAO2 would have taken longer than DA2. Not as long as DAO because the engine/lore was completed but a good while. The biggest hurdle would have been trying to optimize for the consoles to make people happier than they were with DAO. Considering what has been said in the past it isn't a fun job.

[Dormiglione]

Zanallen wrote...

Dormiglione wrote...

You didnt say that, but you implied it with your post. Lets assume Bioware had made DAO2, same content length like DAO and had spent 1-2 years more as for DA2 to make DAO2.
Do you think that DAO2 would have had the same backlash?

We are assuming that Bioware spent 1-2 more years to make the game? So not just 18 months? Why? If DA2 had 1-2 more years of development, it wouldn't be receiving any where near the backlash that it currently is. The comparison makes no sense.

And I didn't imply a damn thing. I said, quite clearly, that the cheapest and easiest sequel that they could have made would be one with no real changes from DA:O. Fact. No real changes = cheaper and easier development.

Please explain: << They didn't sit on their laurels and rehash the same crap over and over again.  >>

It doesnt matter if DA2 had more development time. The direction ("innovations") would have been the same.
- wave of enemies
- meaningless choices
- railroaded with the excuse of a narrative story approach
- much less companion customization
- companion conversation reduced to a minimum

Only the fact of the reused areas would have been handled better.  

[Dormiglione]

PresidentCowboy wrote...

Dormiglione wrote...

You didnt say that, but you implied it with your post. Lets assume Bioware had made DAO2, same content length like DAO and had spent 1-2 years more as for DA2 to make DAO2.
Do you think that DAO2 would have had the same backlash?

If they released DAO2 I would have quit the series right there.

And many people left the Dragon Age franchise because of DA2.

[Zanallen]

Dormiglione wrote...

Please explain: << They didn't sit on their laurels and rehash the same crap over and over again.  >>

It doesnt matter if DA2 had more development time. The direction ("innovations") would have been the same.
- wave of enemies
- meaningless choices
- railroaded with the excuse of a narrative story approach
- much less companion customization
- companion conversation reduced to a minimum

Only the fact of the reused areas would have been handled better.  

What needs explaining? Seems fairly self-explanatory, to me. They decided to try and create a better game, altering what they felt to be weak within the original. They also attempted to address some of the fan concerns from Origins. They didn't need to, but they did.

To address your points:
1. Wave mechanics could have been improved with more development time. Better spawning and reduced requency would have made the waves much better.

2. I don't find the choices to be any less meaningful than those in Origins, so I suppose this is one of those YMMV things.

3. Origins was equally railroaded. Neither game offered actual branches.

4. You can't change the armor, boo hoo. In exchange, the companions have unique models and bodytypes. It would have been much easier to keep the Origins' style.

5. The devs have said that you have approximately the same amount of companion interaction. It is just presented differently.

[Zanallen]

FieryDove wrote...

I disagree. DAO2 would have taken longer than DA2. Not as long as DAO because the engine/lore was completed but a good while. The biggest hurdle would have been trying to optimize for the consoles to make people happier than they were with DAO. Considering what has been said in the past it isn't a fun job.

You honestly believe that making the game more optimized would have taken more time than upgrading the engine, changing the art style and core game mechanics? That is laughable. Besides, who says they would even have to make it more optimized? Dragon Age: Origins worked on consoles. Why change it for a quick and dirty sequel?

[Dormiglione]

PresidentCowboy wrote...

Dormiglione wrote...

PresidentCowboy wrote...

Dormiglione wrote...

You didnt say that, but you implied it with your post. Lets assume Bioware had made DAO2, same content length like DAO and had spent 1-2 years more as for DA2 to make DAO2.
Do you think that DAO2 would have had the same backlash?

If they released DAO2 I would have quit the series right there.

And many people left the Dragon Age franchise because of DA2.

Their loss

I dont think that it was the intention of Bioware to alienate part of the existing fanbase.  Innovation is good when you keep that what worked and added innovation to that.

DA2 was a 180 degree turn. It was not an innovation.

[Sylvianus]

PresidentCowboy wrote...

Dormiglione wrote...

PresidentCowboy wrote...

Dormiglione wrote...

You didnt say that, but you implied it with your post. Lets assume Bioware had made DAO2, same content length like DAO and had spent 1-2 years more as for DA2 to make DAO2.
Do you think that DAO2 would have had the same backlash?

If they released DAO2 I would have quit the series right there.

And many people left the Dragon Age franchise because of DA2.

Their loss

http://greywardens.com/2011/08/dragon-age-ii-how-badly-did-it-sell/

[Zanallen]

Dormiglione wrote...

I dont think that it was the intention of Bioware to alienate part of the existing fanbase.  Innovation is good when you keep that what worked and added innovation to that.

DA2 was a 180 degree turn. It was not an innovation.

Not this crap again. DA 2 has plenty of innovations within the franchise and within Bioware games. Refusing to acknowledge them doesn't make them any less so. But really, this thread isn't about opinions on how well DA2 did or what game you liked more. It is about how it would have been easier and cheaper for Bioware to make a game exactly like Origins while making changes takes more time and money.

[Dragoonlordz]

PresidentCowboy wrote...

Dormiglione wrote...


And many people left the Dragon Age franchise because of DA2.

Their loss

Not really, if Bioware which it seemed headed in a new direction, or a keep new idiology towards following titles then in the end they are no longer making games that person wishes to buy. It not their loss to spend their money on what they enjoy and not on what they did not.

[Dragoonlordz]

Zanallen wrote...

It is about how it would have been easier and cheaper for Bioware to make a game exactly like Origins while making changes takes more time and money.

Thats a guess, I have no intention of arguing about what you guess [might] of happened.

In the end this thread is simply one of those complaining about other people. Another he said, she said, wah wah wah.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 17 août 2011 - 11:48 .

[Zanallen]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Thats a guess, I have no intention of arguing about what you guess [might] of happened.

True, no one can know for sure. However, I highly doubt that making changes and redesigning the game would somehow be less expensive than keeping most everything as it is. Making large alterations to an existing franchise seems to go against what I would consider a cash grab opportunity.

Edit: Not really. I am specifically addressing the idea that Bioware made the game in an effort to make a quick buck. Mostly because it seems like a ludicrous statement. That being said, I don't care if you complain about DA2. I don't care if you hate DA2. I don't care if you loved DA2. I don't care if you want to have Mike Laidlaw's babies, but think Gaider is secretly kidnapping orphans and forcing them to write his books. All I care about are my own opinions and perhaps those of a few others who I find amusing or insightful. It is too late in the game to think anyone is going to change anyone else's minds.

Modifié par Zanallen, 17 août 2011 - 11:45 .

[Kothoses Rothenkisal]

An 18 Month dev cycle and a bunch of recycled areas says your wrong.

Sorry but DA 2 might be an "Ok" game in its own right, but it was rushed out, with low production values in an insanely short amount of time using a lot of the mass effect tools as an attempt to cash in on the success that was origins. An extra year or so in the oven, extra content more engaging narrative and an actual RPG rather than a game that feels like playing an MMO on my own and I might agree with you.

You might like the game, and I am glad you do, but it was and always will be a cheap cash grab sequel rather than a good game in its own right.

DA did improve the combat in some respects and it tried to take the story telling in a new direction, I can salute those efforts even if I personally do not appreciate them compared to the old style Bioware storytelling.

But the game its self, cash grab is the phrase that will always come to mind with the launch of DA 2.

Modifié par Kothoses Rothenkisal, 17 août 2011 - 11:44 .

[bEVEsthda]

Dormiglione wrote...

PresidentCowboy wrote...

Dormiglione wrote...

You didnt say that, but you implied it with your post. Lets assume Bioware had made DAO2, same content length like DAO and had spent 1-2 years more as for DA2 to make DAO2.
Do you think that DAO2 would have had the same backlash?

If they released DAO2 I would have quit the series right there.

And many people left the Dragon Age franchise because of DA2.

Actually, I think DA:O2 would have done quite well. I think it would have even outsold DA:O by a substantial margin, and been the start of exactly the kind of increasing mindshare and growing franchise that Bioware and EA want. Like CoD.
However, keep in mind, one never makes MkII a copy. That's simply never done. For just more of the same, you do expansions. (unfortunately Awakening seem to have suffered from this new DA2 vision pulling resources away).

In the case of DA2 I've always had the feeling that a lot of persons simply didn't like the kind of franchise DA:O was created as, and always wanted to do something completely different. DA2 is a different vision. And a much poorer one, I'd say.  It's as if someone had played a lot of FF and loved those games, and then saw Bayonetta's zipzap and exploding bodies and though "Wow! Awesome! Now I know exactly what DA2 should be like!".

This sort of major shift could be seen already with NWN. Hardly a trace of heritage from the previous BG series. Just a Diablo/Dungeon Siege inspired game. Later I learned, through the forum discussions, that many of the NWN developers had in fact still never played BG, but loved Diablo, so there's explanations for everything.

I think one thing that has to be acknowledged is that if there is noone left in Bioware who still subscribe to the original DA vision, then they can't really do it. They would probably have to do something else and suffer the consequences. And that's pretty much how I think it will play out.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 17 août 2011 - 11:51 .

[Dragoonlordz]

I think innovation could of been done one innovation at time and still fit in the baby steps 'improving' instead fo a complete rebuild with over dozen different new 'things' being done at same time. To improve a product requires baby steps, new ideas over longer period of time and radical change isn't improving (imho) on whats gone before it's a new direction. which causes rifts. You switch from satisfying older fans and gained few more at a time with baby steps to alienating some older fans while maybe gaining some new ones. The former loses hardly any and allows for innovation on smaller scale while latter one losses a great deal more people and is a leap of faith that what they want is what players want. This doesn't end well in many cases and DA2 sales simply [suggest] this might be the case.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 17 août 2011 - 11:50 .

[Zanallen]

Kothoses Rothenkisal wrote...

An 18 Month dev cycle and a bunch of recycled areas says your wrong.

Sorry but DA 2 might be an "Ok" game in its own right, but it was rushed out, with low production values in an insanely short amount of time using a lot of the mass effect tools as an attempt to cash in on the success that was origins. An extra year or so in the oven, extra content more engaging narrative and an actual RPG rather than a game that feels like playing an MMO on my own and I might agree with you.

You might like the game, and I am glad you do, but it was and always will be a cheap cash grab sequel rather than a good game in its own right.

DA did improve the combat in some respects and it tried to take the story telling in a new direction, I can salute those efforts even if I personally do not appreciate them compared to the old style Bioware storytelling.

But the game its self, cash grab is the phrase that will always come to mind with the launch of DA 2.

And with that same 18 month development cycle, Bioware could have made DA:O2 cheaper and had more time for polish. That is my point. The easiest and cheapest method would have been to just rehash Origins with a slightly different plot. The mere fact that they tried to change the formula and give us something different with the limited development time they had available speaks volumes. They wanted the game to be so much more than what it was. They were not trying to just trick people out of $60.

[hawat333]

Zanallen wrote...

I have been seeing this spouted about here and there on the forums quite a bit lately. "Oh, Bioware made DA2 to just to make some quick money and cash in on Origins' success." Frankly, I don't even understand how someone could think that was true. It is asinine and really does Bioware a diservice.

Because it was rushed. Hasty decisions, clearly cheap solutions here and there. Cutting the time and money budget implicates it was a money grab.
Although I do agree, it wasn't the plan. It was sc....d up simply because they wanted to get it done fast. Way too fast, so the quality suffered. A lot. It's there, in every corner, every side quest, every environmental and gameplay solution. Just to make it clear why some people think, thought or wonder if it's true.