166 réponses à ce sujet

[billy the squid]

Zanallen wrote...

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.

Because Awakenings did so well by doing trying to do the same in such a short period of time? It didn't sell, so to sink funds into a product which will actually cost more and require far more time than is available, by doing the same thing is insane. DA2 was the alternative option, for such a tight time frame. Shorter, potentially better cost to earnings ratio on the investment, potentially larger market.

As to the details of DA2's development it looks like a misjudgement on how much time it would take. If such drastic changes were envisioned in DA2, why the hell was the project slated for a development period of only a little over a year? Examine the marketing and interviews designed to appeal to a broader audience, release dates and timings within EA's own fiscal reports. The fact that support dried up on the DLC and bugs for DAO as DA2 neccessitated more focus due to the rushed time period. The numerous bugs which riddled the game when it was first released. Not to mention the recycled environments, generic equipment, dead city, poor side quests and a host of other in game design issues.

It points to a rush job, for what reason I'm not sure. But knowing publicly listed companies it is due to pressure for a release on that fiscal quater and the need for new revenue to fund acquisitions, which EA has recently undertaken or the desire to expand the market share/ change segment, dictating the given direction.

Modifié par billy the squid, 17 août 2011 - 12:04 .

[nitefyre410]

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

This topic is doomed, since the very beginning and will be locked.

In the meantime, I shall entertain myself by watching this spectacel and have my laughs.

*grabs popcorn*

 

hey got enough for two - i'll bring beverages 

[bEVEsthda]

Zanallen wrote...

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.

They wanted the game to be different. Catering to a different vision. A different vision of the game and a different vision of the audience. Don't use the words "so much more" in this context. DA2 is very clearly and objectively so much less. Less of everything. Only thing it can chalk up is a speaking protagonist.

[Zanallen]

billy the squid wrote...

Because Awakenings did so well by doing trying to do the same in such a short period of time? It didn't sell, so to sink funds into a product which will actually cost more and require far more time than is available, by doing the same thing is insane. DA2 was the alternative option, for such a tight time frame. Shorter, potentially better cost to earnings ratio on the investment, potentially larger market.

As to the details of DA2's development is looks like a misjudgement on how much time it would take. If such drastic changes were envisioned in DA2, why the hell was the project slated for a development period of only a little over a year? Examine the marketing and interviews designed to appeal to a broader audience, release dates and timings within EA's own fiscal reports. The fact that support dried up on the DLC and bugs for DAO as DA2 neccessitated more focus due to the rushed time period. The numerous bugs which riddled the game when it was first released.

It points to a rush job, for what reason I'm not sure. But knowing publicly listed companies it is due to pressure for a release on that fiscal quater and the need for new revenue to fund acquisitions, which EA has recently undertaken or the desire to expand the market share/ change segment, dictating the given direction.

Awakening had already made drastic changes from DA:O's formula. It used the same engine sure and cxombat played out largely the same. However, the new combat abilities had more in common with DA2 than with Origins; warriors shooting energy beams from their swords and killing people with a shout. That ridiculous rain of arrow skill that was copied for DA2. Plus, they drastically cut companion interaction and the game was bug ridden. Awakening did not fail due to it being more of the same.

[Zanallen]

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

This topic is doomed, since the very beginning and will be locked.

In the meantime, I shall entertain myself by watching this spectacel and have my laughs.

*grabs popcorn*

I have to make threads like this once every few months or else I get bored.

[Zanallen]

bEVEsthda wrote...

They wanted the game to be different. Catering to a different vision. A different vision of the game and a different vision of the audience. Don't use the words "so much more" in this context. DA2 is very clearly and objectively so much less. Less of everything. Only thing it can chalk up is a speaking protagonist.

I said that they wanted the game to be so much more than what it was. Not that it was more than Origins. And once again, more of the same would have been more cost effective than trying something different.

[Kidd]

I definitely agree with Zanallen here. Not changing the system or art style or anything would've skipped out a whole lot of production costs, enabling BioWare to jump straight into making more content such as new skills, new textures on top of the ones that already exist, new songs etc. Adding on top is always easier than changing things.

If there's anything I absolutely say went wrong during DA2 production though, it's simply planning. You don't plan to change this much if you're only given 18 months, it's practically suicide. We wouldn't have had the same store house fifty times over if the graphics teams could've focused on simply making new areas instead of remaking old material, for instance.

One point I've always found interesting though is when people talk about how giving companions unique looks is a way to cut down on costs. Quite the contrary, it costs a lot more. Hawke, along with the vast majority of NPCs in the game, has no set model aside from the face. Instead, the armour you equip becomes the model.

In DAO, your party members worked this way as well, which is why everyone looks the same if you equip them with the same armour (head aside). Essentially, graphics-wise and technically, a companion is nothing but a head in DAO. The same goes for most NPCs and Hawke herself in DA2. But it is not true for the companions, who instead got their very own models.

[bEVEsthda]

billy the squid wrote...
Because Awakenings did so well by doing trying to do the same in such a short period of time? It didn't sell, so to sink funds into a product which will actually cost more and require far more time than is available, by doing the same thing is insane.

Yes, but I think Awakening was gutted. You see it even clearer in Witch Hunt. "Just stitch up that old crap and get it out of the way, so we can focus on DA2".
The in-house interest had already moved away towards this new vision of a FF/Bayonetta hybrid that would be easy to develop, one-dimensional to play and have the hoards flocking to DA by the millions.

[billy the squid]

Zanallen wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

Because Awakenings did so well by doing trying to do the same in such a short period of time? It didn't sell, so to sink funds into a product which will actually cost more and require far more time than is available, by doing the same thing is insane. DA2 was the alternative option, for such a tight time frame. Shorter, potentially better cost to earnings ratio on the investment, potentially larger market.

As to the details of DA2's development is looks like a misjudgement on how much time it would take. If such drastic changes were envisioned in DA2, why the hell was the project slated for a development period of only a little over a year? Examine the marketing and interviews designed to appeal to a broader audience, release dates and timings within EA's own fiscal reports. The fact that support dried up on the DLC and bugs for DAO as DA2 neccessitated more focus due to the rushed time period. The numerous bugs which riddled the game when it was first released.

It points to a rush job, for what reason I'm not sure. But knowing publicly listed companies it is due to pressure for a release on that fiscal quater and the need for new revenue to fund acquisitions, which EA has recently undertaken or the desire to expand the market share/ change segment, dictating the given direction.

Awakening had already made drastic changes from DA:O's formula. It used the same engine sure and cxombat played out largely the same. However, the new combat abilities had more in common with DA2 than with Origins; warriors shooting energy beams from their swords and killing people with a shout. That ridiculous rain of arrow skill that was copied for DA2. Plus, they drastically cut companion interaction and the game was bug ridden. Awakening did not fail due to it being more of the same.

What you have mentioned is the precise problem of doing a game on the same scale of origins. There is not enough time. So, issues such as this crop up, despite the recycling of certain assets, as such even Awakenings was gutted and rushed, and that lasted only roughly 10 hours, yet it still had big problems. It wouldn't be feasible to try such a thing on a game with the equivalent playing time of potentially 50 hours or more.

Thus we get a shift to DA2 which DAA had already begun.

Modifié par billy the squid, 17 août 2011 - 12:32 .

[Icinix]

Rush Job? No. It just could have used a bit more time testing, tweaking and experimenting with what they were doing. Beta, Quality Control, whatever you want to call it. Of course, this sometimes only blatantly becomes obvious in hindsight.

Like the stormtrooper hitting his head in Star Wars. How many times, and how many people do you think watched that scene and said "YEEEAHH" looks all smooth to me! We're done!

[Dragoonlordz]

Zanallen wrote...

Awakening had already made drastic changes from DA:O's formula. It used the same engine sure and cxombat played out largely the same. However, the new combat abilities had more in common with DA2 than with Origins; warriors shooting energy beams from their swords and killing people with a shout. That ridiculous rain of arrow skill that was copied for DA2. Plus, they drastically cut companion interaction and the game was bug ridden. Awakening did not fail due to it being more of the same.

I agree DA2 has far more in common with DAA than DAO and in that they should of got the hint when making DA2 about how well [or lack of] recieved continuing those changes would be.

They introduced Acts = CDPR did it better but it still has negative effect on consistancy and immersion because has more akin to seporating the player from the game via large time skips.
They added a VO = Done million times before in game and is not an innovation (at all). The only thing debatable is whether personality mechanic was a good thing or bad by taking away choices in dialogue cut back and replaced with tone. Some like some hate but adding a VO itself is the furthest thing from innovation could expect.
They removed vast amount of loot/customisation = Negative affect for most people with some exceptions.
They stripped out most branching = In order to have their beloved "framed marrative" which means linear story progression, where the story take precedence over the player actually [playing] and becomes more like an interactive movie with vast amounts of cutscenes.
They added ninja waves = Simply to make up for putting any effort into tactical, thought out combat to save time and effort. As shown with Legacy what they did prior was just rush job of [x] amount of waves per fight dropping in to keep player busy and prolong the game so doesn't feel so short. Without those waves the game would be couple hours long at most given size of world and how short the fetch/errand boy quests were. DAO's combat was more tactical more thinking required and more fun because of that for the intelligent gamer while DA2's waves were padding and thats all no brainer, reserve your magic pool for the following wave which was to come of the same enemy just faced 2-3 times in same fight via last few waves.
They limited the game to one city, one mountain, one beach and one pit. The rest was simply the same cave, same couple building designs, same couple warehouses. = Rush job, no excuse simply less effort required to fit in with the less time allocated.

It was simply change in direction and idiology. It appeals more to people who require instant gratifcation or lack patience. Flashy over the top combat moves, waves that are more akin to cannon fodder and a story cut short via less branching and quality impact choices, less areas, less customisation, less loot, less companion interaction, less quality quests and so on... It was designed for "new broader audience", "new gamers who haven't played RPGs before", "new people who never played games before"... All new and no old. So old have right to be annoyed that the target audience for the game was like sticking two fingers up at them even if some of those old liked it a vast amount [on BSN and not on BSN shown via sales] did not.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 17 août 2011 - 12:32 .

[AloraKast]

I am truly glad that you enjoyed DA2 so much that you can see past its flaws. It's not meant to be any sort of a sarcastic comment, I really am happy for you.

But I simply cannot fathom HOW in this or any other universe can you honestly believe that it was anything but a rushed out product aiming to capitalize on the success of DA:O as quickly as possible... and following that train of thought how it's difficult to see it as anything but a cash grab.

It's painfully obvious to me (and apparently to a few other people as well, judging by the overall fan reaction) that the good people at Bioware were under the gun to get this product out the door as quickly as humanly possible. I can perceive the rushed quality at every corner, it's full to brimming of the rough edges and of course, its rushed nature sacrificing the high quality we have come to attribute to (and even expect of) Bioware products.

I can certainly appreciate the team wanting to take a risk with a different way of story telling, even a different type of story. It's actually a testament to Bioware's skill at how good the game actually turned out, considering the rushed nature of the product.

You know, I keep pondering over the argument that if DA2 was given more time in development, more attention to detail and focus on quality, allowed to be polished up, it would be a pretty good game and most certainly it wouldn't be such a divisive cause among the community. And I do think that argument is correct.  It's not necessarily about the changes themselves but rather about the poor/rough implementation of said changes.

But really gang, it's obvious that the team (as well as the powers that be) are learning from this experience. My hope for the future is that whoever insisted on the insanely short development cycle (as well as the restrictive budget) will now put a sock in it and let the good and very talented people at Bioware do what they do best and that is delivering a high quality product brimming with TLC.

[Zanallen]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I agree DA2 has far more in common with DAA than DAO and in that they should of got the hint when making DA2 about how well [or lack of] recieved continuing those changes would be.

They introduced Acts = CDPR did it better but it still has negative effect on consistancy and immersion because has more akin to seporating the player from the game via large time skips.
They added a VO = Done million times before in game and is not an innovation (at all). The only thing debatable is whether personality mechanic was a good thing or bad by taking away choices in dialogue cut back and replaced with tone. Some like some hate but adding a VO itself is the furthest thing from innovation could expect.
They removed vast amount of loot/customisation = Negative affect for most people with some exceptions.
They stripped out most branching = In order to have their beloved "framed marrative" which means linear story progression, where the story take precedence over the player actually [playing] and becomes more like an interactive movie with vast amounts of cutscenes.
They added ninja waves = Simply to make up for putting any effort into tactical, thought out combat to save time and effort. As shown with Legacy what they did prior was just rush job of [x] amount of waves per fight dropping in to keep player busy and prolong the game so doesn't feel so short. Without those waves the game would be couple hours long at most given size of world and how short the fetch/errand boy quests were. DAO's combat was more tactical more thinking required and more fun because of that for the intelligent gamer while DA2's waves were padding and thats all no brainer, reserve your magic pool for the following wave which was to come of the same enemy just faced 2-3 times in same fight via last few waves.
They limited the game to one city, one mountain, one beach and one pit. The rest was simply the same cave, same couple building designs, same couple warehouses. = Rush job, no excuse simply less effort required to fit in with the less time allocated.

It was simply change in direction and idiology. It appeals more to people who require instant gratifcation or lack patience. Flashy over the top combat moves, waves that are more akin to cannon fodder and a story cut short via less branching and quality impact choices, less areas, less customisation, less loot, less companion interaction, less quality quests and so on...

As I said before, this isn't really a what we liked or didn't like about DA2 or how it has changed. This is about how it would be easier and cheaper to make no changes at al.

[Dragoonlordz]

And as I said unless they made a DAO2 and DA2 both at same time, then it's guessing and this thread will go nowhere because it runs on the same principle of does god exist scenarios. [What if] style. It therefore has no real point except to cause rifts between those who like DA2 and those who don't.

[Zanallen]

AloraKast wrote...

I am truly glad that you enjoyed DA2 so much that you can see past its flaws. It's not meant to be any sort of a sarcastic comment, I really am happy for you.

But I simply cannot fathom HOW in this or any other universe can you honestly believe that it was anything but a rushed out product aiming to capitalize on the success of DA:O as quickly as possible... and following that train of thought how it's difficult to see it as anything but a cash grab.

It's painfully obvious to me (and apparently to a few other people as well, judging by the overall fan reaction) that the good people at Bioware were under the gun to get this product out the door as quickly as humanly possible. I can perceive the rushed quality at every corner, it's full to brimming of the rough edges and of course, its rushed nature sacrificing the high quality we have come to attribute to (and even expect of) Bioware products.

I can certainly appreciate the team wanting to take a risk with a different way of story telling, even a different type of story. It's actually a testament to Bioware's skill at how good the game actually turned out, considering the rushed nature of the product.

You know, I keep pondering over the argument that if DA2 was given more time in development, more attention to detail and focus on quality, allowed to be polished up, it would be a pretty good game and most certainly it wouldn't be such a divisive cause among the community. And I do think that argument is correct.  It's not necessarily about the changes themselves but rather about the poor/rough implementation of said changes.

But really gang, it's obvious that the team (as well as the powers that be) are learning from this experience. My hope for the future is that whoever insisted on the insanely short development cycle (as well as the restrictive budget) will now put a sock in it and let the good and very talented people at Bioware do what they do best and that is delivering a high quality product brimming with TLC.

Honestly, if Bioware had designed the game to be a cash grab, if from the beginning this game was designed to capitalize on Origins and make a fast buck, they wouldn't have changed anything. It is easier and cheaper to make no changes at all than it is to make drastic alterations. It is that simple.

[Dragoonlordz]

In the end DA2 really wasn't much more than a cinematic interactive movie + waves which is the cuase and effect of [framed narrative] with VO and vast amounts of cutscenes. The waves were just padding and done badly at that..I imagine the person with the hardst job in DA2 work quantity wise was John since it's all just one long cinematic. lol

The low amount of exploration or low quality of fetch quests even low quality of branching (choices/consequences) all of which have been acknowledged as flawed and done badly.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 17 août 2011 - 12:44 .

[Zanallen]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

In the end DA2 really wasn't much more than a cinematic interactive movie + waves which is the cuase and effect of [framed narrative] with VO and vast amounts of cutscenes. The waves were just padding and done badly at that..I imagine the person with the hardst job in DA2 work quantity wise was John since it's all just one long cinematic. lol

Regardless, that costs a lot of money. Once again, making DA2 most likely cost a lot more money than if they would have gone with DA:O2 with a similar development cycle.

And once again, can we please stop bashing DA2. This thread is not to discuss the merits of the game.

Modifié par Zanallen, 17 août 2011 - 12:43 .

[Savber100]

Zanallen wrote...
Honestly, if Bioware had designed the game to be a cash grab, if from the beginning this game was designed to capitalize on Origins and make a fast buck, they wouldn't have changed anything. It is easier and cheaper to make no changes at all than it is to make drastic alterations. It is that simple.

So your reasoning is that because Bioware simplified the gameplay and used repeated enviroments while creating a shorter game after less than 18 months after Origins is NOT cash-in attempt? 

If DA2 wasn't a cash grab then why did Inon Zur said otherwise? Why did they not develop DA2 for at least 2-3 yrs? Why such a rushed development and the decision to use REPEATED ENVIRONMENTS? 

I don't know what's more scary: the fact that Bioware threw out DA2 as a cash grab or that Bioware seriously looked at DA2 and thought it was great, polished game. 

Modifié par Savber100, 17 août 2011 - 12:45 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Zanallen wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

In the end DA2 really wasn't much more than a cinematic interactive movie + waves which is the cuase and effect of [framed narrative] with VO and vast amounts of cutscenes. The waves were just padding and done badly at that..I imagine the person with the hardst job in DA2 work quantity wise was John since it's all just one long cinematic. lol

Regardless, that costs a lot of money. Once again, making DA2 most likely cost a lot more money than if they would have gone with DA:O2 with a similar development cycle.

And once again, can we please stop bashing DA2. This thread is not to discuss the merits of the game.

You have a choice, debate quality of game or bash people for making statements. Out of the two you created this thread for the latter and have said in this thread about how "crap" it would of been to make DAO2 right at start (your words). So your bashing one style of game already. Regardless since this thread is not going to provide anything at all positive I'm gonna leave it there do some RL work instead.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 17 août 2011 - 12:47 .

[bEVEsthda]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...
One point I've always found interesting though is when people talk about how giving companions unique looks is a way to cut down on costs. Quite the contrary, it costs a lot more. Hawke, along with the vast majority of NPCs in the game, has no set model aside from the face. Instead, the armour you equip becomes the model.

In DAO, your party members worked this way as well, which is why everyone looks the same if you equip them with the same armour (head aside). Essentially, graphics-wise and technically, a companion is nothing but a head in DAO. The same goes for most NPCs and Hawke herself in DA2. But it is not true for the companions, who instead got their very own models.

They still need to have the Juggernaut armour fit both Sten, Ohgren, and a skinny elf as well.

It depends on a number of things. If I had a say in this, modeling would be associative. That way you basically only create one single humanoid model for all. All individual, gender and racial variations of this comes from just altering parameters. Armour and clothes modeling the same, the dimensions would be dependant upon the humanoid model.

Building the modeling dependancies takes a little bit more time and effort. But it's something that is only done once and can be re-used and further developed forever.

Even if one decides to use model instances with dependencies cut, exported into game, this approach still removes all extra development cost.
I don't know how Bioware do it. But there's plenty of signs that they're somewhat primitive and spend an awful lot of time creating things manually. Just look at lack of variation in models, simple vegetation, simple rocks and the simple backdrops for instance. They don't seem to have explored procedural generation of content much.
I also don't understand why EA don't have a central resource for this, developing procedural engines for content creation, if they don't.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 17 août 2011 - 01:00 .

[Zanallen]

Savber100 wrote...

So your reasoning is that because Bioware simplified the gameplay and used repeated enviroments while creating a shorter game after less than 18 months after Origins is NOT cash-in attempt? 

If DA2 wasn't a cash grab then why did Inon Zur said otherwise? Why did they not develop DA2 for at least 2-3 yrs? Why such a rushed development and the decision to use REPEATED ENVIRONMENTS? 

I don't know what's more scary: the fact that Bioware threw out DA2 as a cash grab or that Bioware seriously looked at DA2 and thought it was great, polished game. 

And what the hell does Inon Zur know about the inner workings of Bioware and EA? The game was slated for an 18 month development cycle no matter what direction Bioware decided to go. Instead of going the easy route and just rehashing Origins, Bioware decided to make changes and try something different. That speaks of a desire to craft a well made game that addressed some of the problems with the original while shifting the series in the direction that they have been shown to be moving in for almost eight years now. So, allow me to repeat myself, they did not take the easy way out or the cheaper route.

[TheRealJayDee]

Urm, yes, it kind of was a cash grab. If you look at how fast and in what state the game was released it's really hard to argue against that. I do, however, agree that it would have been much wiser NOT to combine major changes in all aspects of the game with such a short development cycle. They could have easily made DA2's story based on what they had from DA:O, while slightly improving things that needed improving. But instead they decided to change pretty much everything, from gameplay to overall design, which resulted in, well, DA2.

[Zanallen]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

You have a choice, debate quality of game or bash people for making statements. Out of the two you created this thread for the latter and have said in this thread about how "crap" it would of been to make DAO2 right at start (your words). So your bashing one style of game already. Regardless since this thread is not going to provide anything at all positive I'm gonna leave it there do some RL work instead.

So now you are telling me why I made this thread? Interesting. I created this thread to address a specific complaint that I have been seeing. And yes, I feel that if Bioware had simply rehashed Origins without putting any effort into fixing issues that were present in the game, it would have been a crap move.