166 réponses à ce sujet

[AloraKast]

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.

Hmmm, I think you are correct Dragoonlordz.  This thread seems to be terribly one sided (is that the correct term?) instead of a thoughtful dialogue being exchanged. *sigh* Oh well...

[Zanallen]

TheRealJayDee wrote...

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.

But that is precisely why it wasn't a simple cash grab. You don't make massive alterations to an existing franchise when you just want to make a quick buck. That makes no sense from a business prospective. Bioware tried to make a great game that would please fans, but most likely fell short of their goal. As I said before, YMMV on the opinion of DA2's success.

[Fireblader70]

All Bioware had to do was say "look, we know you want Dragon Age 2 to be finished as soon as possible, but releasing it in this unfinished state would simply create more controversy than it would success." After all, many people predicted this simply from looking at the changed mechanics (not me, I should add).

But they didn't say that. Instead of standing up to EA, they simply went along with it, because who doesn't like less work? Therefore, the game was not typical Bioware style and was released primarily for the 'cash', whether the individual workers felt that way or not.
And yet, even after the uproar from Dragon Age 2's release, the developers still talk about 'limited resources' and not being able to do what they did in Dragon Age Origins. Why can they not simply replicate Origins? It's because EA is continuing to put pressure on them to work, just like any industrial business out there.

I suppose it remains to be seen if this lower standard continues... when Mass Effect 3 releases next year. Why did they get another few months of development after Dragon Age 2 failed? Exactly, not the best sign in the world.

[Zanallen]

Fireblader70 wrote...

All Bioware had to do was say "look, we know you want Dragon Age 2 to be finished as soon as possible, but releasing it in this unfinished state would simply create more controversy than it would success." After all, many people predicted this simply from looking at the changed mechanics (not me, I should add).

But they didn't say that. Instead of standing up to EA, they simply went along with it, because who doesn't like less work? Therefore, the game was not typical Bioware style and was released primarily for the 'cash', whether the individual workers felt that way or not.
And yet, even after the uproar from Dragon Age 2's release, the developers still talk about 'limited resources' and not being able to do what they did in Dragon Age Origins. Why can they not simply replicate Origins? It's because EA is continuing to put pressure on them to work, just like any industrial business out there.

I suppose it remains to be seen if this lower standard continues... when Mass Effect 3 releases next year. Why did they get another few months of development after Dragon Age 2 failed? Exactly, not the best sign in the world.

Lol, you don't tell your boss that you need a few more months and a few more millions to get the job done. That is a quick way to be fired. When you are given a deadline, you do everything you can to meet that deadline. DA2 received, I believe, an extra month or so, but that is fairly rare and it is entirely up to the bosses.

Also, make no mistake, if it wasn't for EA there is a good chance that Origins would have never been released.

[willholt]

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.

Then,  instead of taking out those failed attempts and trying again they kept those, then proceeded to strip out what was left that actually worked.

Awakenings failed because it tried to be a DAO/DA2 hybrid.

Unfortunately (to use an analogy) when it was 'not so well' received they somehow decided that the best way to cure the patient was to keep the disease, kill the patient and build a new patient around the disease.

Well, we all saw how that worked out.

[Luvinn]

Dragoonlordz wrote...


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.

Got to agree with that. The wave mechanic was so tedious and boring that it got to the point where I would dread progressing the story, knowing i would have to sit in the same spot fighting wave after wave of reinforcements. I couldn't help but think that it was just a cheap mechanic to give the illusion that the game wasn't short. Add to this the fact of the constant reuse of the same 3 areas, 16-bit looking generic art, and horrible looking NPC models (random elves in the city) that just stand around doing the same constant motion over and over, and this game pretty much sounds like it was a quick way to capitolize on some fast profit. To me, this seems like it would have save much more time in development than building a new, good game out of the DA:O engine.

Sure, it's very possible to argue using the same engine as DA:O would have been easier, but that is just one way to think about it. I'm no game designer, so its merely speculation on my part (and im sure most other people who argue about this point too), but for all we know it might have been easier to create the game with the new engine not just for DA2, but maybe for DA3 too. I really hope I'm wrong about that.

Modifié par Luvinn, 17 août 2011 - 01:18 .

[TheRealJayDee]

Zanallen wrote...

TheRealJayDee wrote...

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.

But that is precisely why it wasn't a simple cash grab. You don't make massive alterations to an existing franchise when you just want to make a quick buck. That makes no sense from a business prospective. Bioware tried to make a great game that would please fans, but most likely fell short of their goal. As I said before, YMMV on the opinion of DA2's success.

Yeah, agreed. If it was clear that the game had to be in the stores by the time it was there is no reason to try and alter as much as they did, because it had to have seem clear that the resulting game would suffer from it. So, yes, it wasn't a simple cash grab, it was a risky and unwise cash grab.

[Zanallen]

Cut the hyperbole please. It doesn't do you any good. As for waves, there is something to be said for thinking on your feet. Does the wave mechanic pad the game's length? Sure. Of course it does. However, it has a place and the concept itself isn't bad. It was overused and the spawning needs work, but the concept as a whole is nice. You shouldn't be able to know every fight before it even starts. It makes sense for your opponents to have people in reserve or people in other rooms. I find the wave mechanic to be just as tactical, just in a different manner.

But back to the actual topic of the thread, changing to combat system has to cost more time, effort and money than keeping the system from Origins. As such, it isn't something someone would do with a cash grab.

[Zanallen]

TheRealJayDee wrote...

Yeah, agreed. If it was clear that the game had to be in the stores by the time it was there is no reason to try and alter as much as they did, because it had to have seem clear that the resulting game would suffer from it. So, yes, it wasn't a simple cash grab, it was a risky and unwise cash grab.

I have no evidence, but my belief is that the game had its development cycle cut to make room for something else. TOR perhaps? I think Mike and the gang thought they would have more time to polish the game and really implement the changes the way they needed to be implemented and then got shafted and had to scramble to pull a game together from what they had.

[Fireblader70]

Zanallen wrote...

Lol, you don't tell your boss that you need a few more months and a few more millions to get the job done. That is a quick way to be fired. When you are given a deadline, you do everything you can to meet that deadline. DA2 received, I believe, an extra month or so, but that is fairly rare and it is entirely up to the bosses.

Also, make no mistake, if it wasn't for EA there is a good chance that Origins would have never been released.

Risk taking is all about being human. I don't think it would work out too badly now, though... seeing as how Dragon Age 2 turned out. They would at least think about it, if they had good business sense. Plenty of time isn't too bad when you're raking in the money from Mass Effect 3 and The Old Republic.

Yes, EA possibly did good with Origins, but it doesn't mean what they did afterwards was acceptable. That's like saying Hitler made all these promises that gave people hope, then when he came to power he turned into a psychopath. And no, I am by NO MEANS comparing EA to Hitler. AT ALL. Just so we're clear.

[billy the squid]

Fireblader70 wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

Lol, you don't tell your boss that you need a few more months and a few more millions to get the job done. That is a quick way to be fired. When you are given a deadline, you do everything you can to meet that deadline. DA2 received, I believe, an extra month or so, but that is fairly rare and it is entirely up to the bosses.

Also, make no mistake, if it wasn't for EA there is a good chance that Origins would have never been released.

Risk taking is all about being human. I don't think it would work out too badly now, though... seeing as how Dragon Age 2 turned out. They would at least think about it, if they had good business sense. Plenty of time isn't too bad when you're raking in the money from Mass Effect 3 and The Old Republic.

Yes, EA possibly did good with Origins, but it doesn't mean what they did afterwards was acceptable. That's like saying Hitler made all these promises that gave people hope, then when he came to power he turned into a psychopath. And no, I am by NO MEANS comparing EA to Hitler. AT ALL. Just so we're clear.

Dragon Age Origins was a sunk cost, EA acquired Bioware in 2007 I belive and DAO had been in development since about 2004, EA had a partially finished product so it made sense to finish it and try and earn some profit on it to try and cover some of those sunk costs, as well as the fixed and variables.

Whilst TOR has a racked up a cost of over £300 million, not including its sunk costs. So, I think they cut corners on DA2 from the begininng and aimed it at the mass market for potentially a higher revenue, partly because the number of other projects going on, it wasn't practical to have another large scale cost heavy project on the go at the same time as development for BF3, TOR and ME3 was present, and partly a shift in their audience.

Modifié par billy the squid, 17 août 2011 - 02:02 .

[bEVEsthda]

Zanallen wrote...

TheRealJayDee wrote...

Yeah, agreed. If it was clear that the game had to be in the stores by the time it was there is no reason to try and alter as much as they did, because it had to have seem clear that the resulting game would suffer from it. So, yes, it wasn't a simple cash grab, it was a risky and unwise cash grab.

I have no evidence, but my belief is that the game had its development cycle cut to make room for something else. TOR perhaps? I think Mike and the gang thought they would have more time to polish the game and really implement the changes the way they needed to be implemented and then got shafted and had to scramble to pull a game together from what they had.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here? "more time to polish the game and really implement the changes the way they needed to be implemented"?
DA2 is remarkably polished for a new 18 month game. It has some flaws, like reused environments. I'm not sure about the waves, never considered them a flaw, maybe the spawning.

The main thing that makes DA2 suck horse manure through straw is not lack of polish but the new direction. It's a very simple game, with gameplay concentrated to the combat, which in turn is a completely isolated sub-game inside DA2. This subgame has only one final outcome -> you win, and only one function -> a task to be accomplished in order to advance. While it does some things in a somewhat different manner, DA2 fall back on the simple, one dimensional philosophy of FF: A story told with movies, with intermittent levels of combat to check off in order to advance. As starkly naked, straight and isolated elements as possible.
The new direction is not something new, innovative or "taking advantage of 15 years of improvements in UI and gameplay" to quote M.L. (That's a ridiculous statement, considering old BG, which is a far more interesting, convoluted and advanced game than DA2.). The new direction is crap, yet another symbolic, representation on top of the very simple and old console/arcade game paradigm from the '80ies.

Gameplay paradigms haven't been advancing, evolving or diverging in later years. They are all converging, regardless of genre, towards a very old and simple bash-the-baddies,-collect-the-pretty-glowing-things,-whittle-down-the-Boss,-advance-to-next-level ideal that has been around since the scrolling games and first Mario platformers (and yes: "iconic looks"  instead of player manipulations). Bioware talks about "moving forward" but DA2 does the exact opposite. It's headed for videogamings stone age.
Only thing it brings to the table is more and better movies, speaking protagonist and exploding bodies. I'm quite appalled by the number of people who are so excited about this, even if they're a clear minority.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 17 août 2011 - 02:23 .

[Zanallen]

bEVEsthda wrote...

-Snip-

There is no clear cut anything. You can't say I am in the minority or you in the majority. We get it, you didn't like the changes in DA2. That doesn't make them bad and it certainly doesn't make them a step backward in video game development.

As for my own point, I was saying that I felt that DA2 was originally given a longer development time that was then cut to make room for another project. I thought I made that clear enough in my post. While DA2 was well made for something that only had 18 months of development time, there are clear issues that could have been fixed with more time.

[dheer]

TheRealJayDee wrote...
So, yes, it wasn't a simple cash grab, it was a risky and unwise cash grab.

Indeed.

[IanPolaris]

Zanallen wrote...

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.

I think your problem is you fail to distinguish between the Bioware Developement Team and EA who produces the game.  I think because of the hideously short production cycle, low budget, and much of EA's marketing, that EA did in fact intend to cash in on the Dragon Age name which is why they gave the Dev team the marching orders they did.

As for the Dev Team, I think the sin (if you wish to call it that) is different.  I think that ML had his own "vision" of what a CRPG/DA may look like and devil take his established audience by the hindmost....which violates the iron role of know your customer.  However, the one thing I won't accuse ML or his team is deliberately doing shoddy work.  His other titles argue strongly against that.  I think that ML and his team did the best they thought they could within the three contraints of the insanely short dev time (EA), low budget (EA),and the desire to strip the game down and  'do it right' (in their opinion) (which was all on BW).  I actually think the third "sin" was the greatest, but I do think that DA2 was in fact an attempted cash grab.

-Polaris

[billy the squid]

PresidentCowboy wrote...

Cash grab? No. Rush job? Yes.

So the current design direction which has attempted to shift to the mass market, built on the success of the predecessor in an entirely different market segment. In addition of the multiplicity of reasons which have been listed is not an attempt to cash in.

Modifié par billy the squid, 17 août 2011 - 03:04 .

[Brockololly]

DA2 was a cash grab but a pretty poorly thought out one. Like Inon Zur said, they rushed the game out to try and capitalize on the success of Origins. And yet, knowing they only had a short time to iterate on Origins, BioWare thought it a good idea to try and overhaul the art style, combat and overall focus of the game series.

That they thought they could get away with those sort of 180 degree changes in such a short amount of time doesn't seem like good planning to me. If they were limited to a shorter development cycle to make DA2 a cash grab, if they built off the foundation of Origins instead of trying to do a rushjob of tearing down the foundation Origins laid to effectively reboot DA, DA2 likely would have been a better received game instead of what it turned out as. They tried to fix much of what wasn't broken and in the process ended up breaking a whole hell of a lot more and alienated a healthy portion of their existing fanbase Origins built up.


The devs bit off more than they could chew given the time frame they had to work with and it shows in the final product.

Modifié par Brockololly, 17 août 2011 - 03:14 .

[Savber100]

Zanallen wrote...

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.

You're stating that  Bioware attempted something new = no rushed job or money grab. 

I'm saying that "trying something new" doesn't mean that DA2 wasn't a cashgrab. The fact remains that DA2 came out in less than 18 months after DA:O. What was the result? We got copy n paste enviroments, simplified gameplay, and an incoherent story. How the hell do you justify that as not being rushed and that Bioware was "not taking the easy way out or the cheaper route?"  

DA2 was a cash grab despite Bioware trying something new. We still see hints of Bioware's old creativity in DA2 but it was ruined by a rushed development. Was it their fault? Maybe not. EA may had a role in it. However, the evidence have shown that Bioware spent only 18 months when no one was really rushing them for a sequel! Why? If Bioware had such "great and new ideas" why didn't they take more time to fully develop them rather than rushing it out? You tell me. 

And I assume you knew better than Inon Zur who composed for both games? The fact that someone that worked for Bioware spoke up about this as he composed the DA2's soundtrack is pretty obvious evidence of a production that was rushed. 

TLDR: Why rush DA2 if it wasn't a cashgrab that will capitalize over DA:O's success? I think it's plainly obvious that 18 months is NOT enough for a full RPG sequel. 

Modifié par Savber100, 17 août 2011 - 03:17 .

[Monica21]

PresidentCowboy wrote...

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

Their loss

And surely you realize that having fans abandon a franchise for any reason is bad for you too, right? I personally would not like to see a game sell so badly that the franchise is abandoned altogether. 

[Zanallen]

Savber100 wrote...

You're stating that  Bioware attempted something new = no rushed job or money grab. 

I'm saying that "trying something new" doesn't mean that DA2 wasn't a cashgrab. The fact remains that DA2 came out in less than 18 months after DA:O. What was the result? We got copy n paste enviroments, simplified gameplay, and an incoherent story. How the hell do you justify that as not being rushed and that Bioware was "not taking the easy way out or the cheaper route?"  

DA2 was a cash grab despite Bioware trying something new. We still see hints of Bioware's old creativity in DA2 but it was ruined by a rushed development. Was it their fault? Maybe not. EA may had a role in it. However, the evidence have shown that Bioware spent only 18 months when no one was really rushing them for a sequel! Why? If Bioware had such "great and new ideas" why didn't they take more time to fully develop them rather than rushing it out? You tell me. 

And I assume you knew better than Inon Zur who composed for both games? The fact that someone that worked for Bioware spoke up about this as he composed the DA2's soundtrack is pretty obvious evidence of a production that was rushed. 

How can I justify it? Simple. If Bioware didn't make the changes, they would have been able to focus more on presenting a finished, polished game. If they had rehashed Origins, they would have had plenty of time to make a cash grab that sold well with only 18 months of development time. Instead, they decided to atually try and make something different and steer the the franchise into a new direction. That definitely doesn't sound like the way a professional business would make a cash grab.

Do you know that no one was rushing them for a sequel? No. If they were given 18 months, then I can only assume that is what EA wanted. You don't just tell your boss that you weren't given enough time. You roll with it and hope for the best. Bioware decided to use their time with a gamble and an attempt to make something different instead of taking the easy route and doing what they had done before.

All that quote says is that the soundtrack was rushed. Since sound tracks are generally done towards the end of a game's development, that makes sense to me. Also, the composer doesn't know the inner workings of the development teams. The composer is hired on as an outside contractor, told the general feelings that are to be conveyed, perhaps shown the various scenes and then go to work.

Edit: Also, BG2 was made in about 18 months, so it is entirely possible to make a good sequel in that amount of time if you don't make sweeping changes. Was BG2 a quick cash grab to profit on the success of BG1?

Modifié par Zanallen, 17 août 2011 - 03:26 .

[syllogi]

Zanallen wrote...

Savber100 wrote...

You're stating that  Bioware attempted something new = no rushed job or money grab. 

I'm saying that "trying something new" doesn't mean that DA2 wasn't a cashgrab. The fact remains that DA2 came out in less than 18 months after DA:O. What was the result? We got copy n paste enviroments, simplified gameplay, and an incoherent story. How the hell do you justify that as not being rushed and that Bioware was "not taking the easy way out or the cheaper route?"  

DA2 was a cash grab despite Bioware trying something new. We still see hints of Bioware's old creativity in DA2 but it was ruined by a rushed development. Was it their fault? Maybe not. EA may had a role in it. However, the evidence have shown that Bioware spent only 18 months when no one was really rushing them for a sequel! Why? If Bioware had such "great and new ideas" why didn't they take more time to fully develop them rather than rushing it out? You tell me. 

And I assume you knew better than Inon Zur who composed for both games? The fact that someone that worked for Bioware spoke up about this as he composed the DA2's soundtrack is pretty obvious evidence of a production that was rushed. 

How can I justify it? Simple. If Bioware didn't make the changes, they would have been able to focus more on presenting a finished, polished game. If they had rehashed Origins, they would have had plenty of time to make a cash grab that sold well with only 18 months of development time. Instead, they decided to atually try and make something different and steer the the franchise into a new direction. That definitely doesn't sound like the way a professional business would make a cash grab.

Do you know that no one was rushing them for a sequel? No. If they were given 18 months, then I can only assume that is what EA wanted. You don't just tell your boss that you weren't given enough time. You roll with it and hope for the best. Bioware decided to use their time with a gamble and an attempt to make something different instead of taking the easy route and doing what they had done before.

All that quote says is that the soundtrack was rushed. Since sound tracks are generally done towards the end of a game's development, that makes sense to me. Also, the composer doesn't know the inner workings of the development teams. The composer is hired on as an outside contractor, told the general feelings that are to be conveyed, perhaps shown the various scenes and then go to work.

Edit: Also, BG2 was made in about 18 months, so it is entirely possible to make a good sequel in that amount of time if you don't make sweeping changes. Was BG2 a quick cash grab to profit on the success of BG1?

Are you saying it's okay that the game wasn't as good as it could have been, because it was rushed?  If so, why is that acceptable, as a consumer, in any circumstance?

Personally, I would have been fine with waiting another year or even more for DA2, if it meant that the game was more polished, the individual Acts were more cohesive, and the level design was more diverse.

[Zanallen]

TeenZombie wrote...

Are you saying it's okay that the game wasn't as good as it could have been, because it was rushed?  If so, why is that acceptable, as a consumer, in any circumstance?

Personally, I would have been fine with waiting another year or even more for DA2, if it meant that the game was more polished, the individual Acts were more cohesive, and the level design was more diverse.

No, I am saying that Bioware did not design the game to be a cash grab. That is the entire point of this thread. Do I think the game could have been better? Sure. No game is perfect. All games could use improvement. However, I am a realist. I understand that if you are given a set time to do something, you are expected to do your best with what you are given. If the game isn't to your liking, that is fine.

[Kothoses Rothenkisal]

Zanallen wrote...

Savber100 wrote...

You're stating that  Bioware attempted something new = no rushed job or money grab. 

I'm saying that "trying something new" doesn't mean that DA2 wasn't a cashgrab. The fact remains that DA2 came out in less than 18 months after DA:O. What was the result? We got copy n paste enviroments, simplified gameplay, and an incoherent story. How the hell do you justify that as not being rushed and that Bioware was "not taking the easy way out or the cheaper route?"  

DA2 was a cash grab despite Bioware trying something new. We still see hints of Bioware's old creativity in DA2 but it was ruined by a rushed development. Was it their fault? Maybe not. EA may had a role in it. However, the evidence have shown that Bioware spent only 18 months when no one was really rushing them for a sequel! Why? If Bioware had such "great and new ideas" why didn't they take more time to fully develop them rather than rushing it out? You tell me. 

And I assume you knew better than Inon Zur who composed for both games? The fact that someone that worked for Bioware spoke up about this as he composed the DA2's soundtrack is pretty obvious evidence of a production that was rushed. 

How can I justify it? Simple. If Bioware didn't make the changes, they would have been able to focus more on presenting a finished, polished game. If they had rehashed Origins, they would have had plenty of time to make a cash grab that sold well with only 18 months of development time. Instead, they decided to atually try and make something different and steer the the franchise into a new direction. That definitely doesn't sound like the way a professional business would make a cash grab.

Do you know that no one was rushing them for a sequel? No. If they were given 18 months, then I can only assume that is what EA wanted. You don't just tell your boss that you weren't given enough time. You roll with it and hope for the best. Bioware decided to use their time with a gamble and an attempt to make something different instead of taking the easy route and doing what they had done before.

All that quote says is that the soundtrack was rushed. Since sound tracks are generally done towards the end of a game's development, that makes sense to me. Also, the composer doesn't know the inner workings of the development teams. The composer is hired on as an outside contractor, told the general feelings that are to be conveyed, perhaps shown the various scenes and then go to work.

Edit: Also, BG2 was made in about 18 months, so it is entirely possible to make a good sequel in that amount of time if you don't make sweeping changes. Was BG2 a quick cash grab to profit on the success of BG1?

Im laughing at the Baldurs gate reference, Clearly it wasnt a cash grab because it was actually a good game with an interesting narrative, captivating narrative and a cohesive plot.  Also it was done not only on a prebuilt engine but in a time when games were a lot less complex and also on much much smaller budget I would imagine.

You seem to simply want to stick your fingers in your ears and ignore everyone elses opinion on this, which is fine and you are welcome to do that, but when you open up a debate on a public forum you have to expect people to debate, and be prepared for back and forth.

Your arguments are illogical, irrational and ill thought out, in short they are entirely human.  Just because DA 2 was made without the isometric view of origins does not mean it was an all new product.  If they wanted to cut corners with design they would have been better off keeping the engine and just expanding on it with a good game that had meaningful content (Like Baldurs gate 2 actually... duh)

Instead what they did is cross it with mass effect but skimp on the content, had they sold DA 2 as an expansion not a sequel, or as a budget title I wouldnt be so bothered, but they sold me £40 of recycled linear dull content that was superficial and rushed.  To call that some kind of artistic experiment is simply stubborn at this stage when even Bioware have acknowledged (quietly) that it was a mistake or as they put it "not intentional" though how recycling levels can be an accident I am unsure.....

[Kothoses Rothenkisal]

Anyway I will say this and thenin summary and this will be my last post because I have little interest in debating with people who refuse to even acknowledge other opinions and simply try and use emperors new clothes style logic.

Dev cycle 18 months

New content making up 25% of the game 75% of game in recycled areas.

Full price for game

Game marketed as AAA
= Cash Grab

Good day sir.

Modifié par Kothoses Rothenkisal, 17 août 2011 - 03:42 .