166 réponses à ce sujet

[Zanallen]

Kothoses Rothenkisal wrote...

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.....

So if the game is good, then it isn't a cash grab? Riiiiight.

And you are actually proving my point. If Bioware really wanted to throw out a game in a short amount of time that was designed to cash in on Origins, then they would have made a game similar to Origins. They would have used the engine they had, used the art style, used the core game mechanics. That is smart business sense for making money on the quick. You make use of the resources at hand instead of designing new ones. You don't even need to cut corners because you have so much already prepared for use. What is so hard to understand about that?

Bioware decided to take an opposite approach. They wanted to shift the series and alter numerous design points. You don't do that with a cash grab. They attempted to innovate and tried something new. Unfortunately, some aspects did not pan out as well as they would have liked.

[Kothoses Rothenkisal]

Zanallen wrote...

Kothoses Rothenkisal wrote...

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.....

So if the game is good, then it isn't a cash grab? Riiiiight.

And you are actually proving my point. If Bioware really wanted to throw out a game in a short amount of time that was designed to cash in on Origins, then they would have made a game similar to Origins. They would have used the engine they had, used the art style, used the core game mechanics. That is smart business sense for making money on the quick. You make use of the resources at hand instead of designing new ones. You don't even need to cut corners because you have so much already prepared for use. What is so hard to understand about that?

Bioware decided to take an opposite approach. They wanted to shift the series and alter numerous design points. You don't do that with a cash grab. They attempted to innovate and tried something new. Unfortunately, some aspects did not pan out as well as they would have liked.

Yes if a game is good it isnt a Cash grab, or more it could be a cash grab and I would not care because it would represent value for money........

Essentially what you just said is "If a game is good it isnt a cash grab, Bioware decided to take the opposite approach and make a crappy game, and I salute them for trying something new".

Seriously mate, give up, thats some flawed logic right there.

DA 2 Was a cash grab because it was rushed out, lacking in content.  Baldurs Gate 2 might have had a similar dev cycle but it was a good game full of content and represented value for money.  Split hairs if you want, but DA 2 was not value for money, it was not a Triple AAA Game and selling it for the same price as a triple AAA Game was a cash grab....

Modifié par Kothoses Rothenkisal, 17 août 2011 - 04:03 .

[Zanallen]

Kothoses Rothenkisal wrote...

Yes if a game is good it isnt a Cash grab, or more it could be a cash grab and I would not care because it would represent value for money........

Essentially what you just said is "If a game is good it isnt a cash grab, Bioware decided to take the opposite approach and make a crappy game, and I salute them for trying something new".

Seriously mate, give up, thats some flawed logic right there.

DA 2 Was a cash grab because it was rushed out, lacking in content.  Baldurs Gate 2 might have had a similar dev cycle but it was a good game full of content and represented value for money.  Split hairs if you want, but DA 2 was not value for money, it was not a Triple AAA Game and selling it for the same price as a triple AAA Game was a cash grab....

Allow me to put it bluntly for you. I do not believe that Bioware set out to use DA2 as a cash grab. The way they went about designing the game is all wrong for trying to make a quick and dirty game with an established franchise. It would have been much easier for them to take what they had in Origins, change the plot up a bit and release it as Origins 2. That, to me, would be the epitome of a cash grab using an established franchise.

Now, if Bioware did set out to cash in on Origins with DA2, they went about it in an incredibly retarded manner. I don't think anyone at Bioware is foolish enough to do that. I think they honestly wanted to make a great game more in line with their current vision, but did not have the time or resources to do it properly.

Modifié par Zanallen, 17 août 2011 - 04:10 .

[MerinTB]

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.

Many, many of my favorite series of games were just minor improvements and added features for each successive iteration.  There's no need to constantly reinvent the wheel - when you make a game engine and a game world, you can (and fans who like it will accept, even treasure) take that engine and world and fix a few problems and add a few new features and release a sequel.  It's a pretty time-honored tradition and sells very well.

What isn't time-honored are game series that shake things up each iteration.  Bethesda is one of my favorite examples... Arena to Daggerfall to Morrowind to Oblivion, those games follow a clear progression but if you've played one you've got the playstyle for all of them, more or less.  But wait- there was Battlespire and Red Guard, anyone remember them?  No?  Case closed.  If Battlespire or Red Guard had been successful the Elder Scrolls series would have gone in a different direction.

I will never understand the need to "change everything" for the sake of change.  You are as likely to produce crap as you are to produce gold.  If you are doing a series, consistancy.  If you want to do something new, start a NEW project.

[Zanallen]

MerinTB wrote...

Many, many of my favorite series of games were just minor improvements and added features for each successive iteration.  There's no need to constantly reinvent the wheel - when you make a game engine and a game world, you can (and fans who like it will accept, even treasure) take that engine and world and fix a few problems and add a few new features and release a sequel.  It's a pretty time-honored tradition and sells very well.

What isn't time-honored are game series that shake things up each iteration.  Bethesda is one of my favorite examples... Arena to Daggerfall to Morrowind to Oblivion, those games follow a clear progression but if you've played one you've got the playstyle for all of them, more or less.  But wait- there was Battlespire and Red Guard, anyone remember them?  No?  Case closed.  If Battlespire or Red Guard had been successful the Elder Scrolls series would have gone in a different direction.

I will never understand the need to "change everything" for the sake of change.  You are as likely to produce crap as you are to produce gold.  If you are doing a series, consistancy.  If you want to do something new, start a NEW project.

Change everything? No. But there have to be changes to prevent the franchise from becoming stale. Perhaps Bioware tried to change too much, I dunno. It is hard to objectively critique the various issues with the game considering the short development time and other issues. That is actually one of the things that annoys me about DA2 discussions. People try and use the games relatively mediocre sales to justify any opinion on the game. "Bioware should go back to a silent protagonist. DA 2's sales proved that people don't want voiced." "Bioware should bring back companion armor customization. DA 2 sold badly because they took that out." It is silly.

[willholt]

Zanallen wrote...

Change everything? No. But there have to be changes to prevent the franchise from becoming stale.

How on earth can a franchise (DA) become stale after one game?... They didn't make wholesale changes after DAO 4 'The Third Coming Of Leliana' ... they made it after one game.

Zanallen wrote...Perhaps Bioware tried to change too much, I dunno. It is hard to objectively critique the various issues with the game considering the short development time and other issues.

Except that creates the biggest criticism of all, which is... If you haven't got time to make changes, don't make them. Especially so many unnecessary ones.

Zanallen wrote...That is actually one of the things that annoys me about DA2 discussions. People try and use the games relatively mediocre sales to justify any opinion on the game. "Bioware should go back to a silent protagonist. DA 2's sales proved that people don't want voiced." "Bioware should bring back companion armor customization. DA 2 sold badly because they took that out." It is silly.

Ultimately it's what the game contains (or doesn't) that will determine sales, and what people think of it. To say that (in youe opinion) a particular issue someone might have with the game is a silly one, and not a valid reason for someone to not have bought the game (reducing sales) is equally as silly.

Modifié par willholt, 17 août 2011 - 04:46 .

[MerinTB]

All the changes I need is advancement in narrative or a new story. I was ecstatic with the Gold Box engine from SSI for a dozen or so games. Dawn of War kept me happy through four boxes (1 ostensibly an expansion, sure.) The Sims sold ridiculously well for years with many releases before Sims 2 came out. Portal 2 is Portal 1, twice as long, with more story and new goo but is pretty much the same thing. No major changes between Halo's 1-3, really.

I'm all for tweaking, improving compression, graphics, code... adding a couple features, maybe dropping one that didn't work as intended.

DA2 is not DA:O, though. Not. Even. Close. It's in Thedas, that's about the similarity.

Modifié par MerinTB, 17 août 2011 - 04:42 .

[Dubya75]

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.

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.

Very good point, very well presented! Thumbs up!

[jds1bio]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

It is hard to objectively critique the various issues with the game considering the short development time and other issues.

And why exactly should people who purchased a truncated game at full price factor in the short development cycle for DA2 when assessing its merits (or lack thereof)? Come on, the ludicrously short turnaround time for DA2 should be evidence enough that the game was a quick and dirty right? Right? And that’s to say nothing of the ‘finished’ product itself! More power to those who managed to enjoy the game, but please don’t pretend that Dragon Age 2 doesn’t scream rush job at the top of its tiny little voice.  And no, change for change sake is rarely a good thing.

Um...

The voice acting was top-notch.  The music, while a bit sparse at times, was still of high quality throughout.  The armor, equipment, and hi-res details all worked from day one.  The number of main, companion, and secondary quests, plus all codex writing and dialogue options, suggest a sustained work effort and hours of gaming above and beyond the gaming average for a $60 title.  So quick-and-dirty this game is not.

However, seeing as how the KOA:R release date was just announced, and the way it was announced, leads me to believe that EA has a strong influence on release dates for studios under their umbrella.  Looking at the release calendar for RPGs in 2011 and 2012, I'd say they got this one right with DA2 in terms of maximizing gamers' attention.  Unfortunately, with this we got some recycled environments, the paring of certain story elements, and the unfinished tuning of combat waves.  But while any release date for any game is chosen in the hopes of maximizing the money made, none of this means cash-grab in any way.

The companion DLC, however, is a different story.  For a game so centered on companion relationships, to have a companion carved out and wrapped up as a DLC is unfortunate for the gamer.  Could Sebastian have made DA2's story better had he been part of the main package in the first place?  Could he have affected major plot points and Hawke's time in Kirkwall in more interesting ways?  Sadly, we'll never know, since this arrangement must have been planned early enough, given the availability of Sebastian to early pre-orders.  This right here is what smells of a cash-grab.  (And based on past companion DLCs like Zaeed and Kasumi, is Sebastian even worth it?)

[twincast]

MerinTB wrote...

Many, many of my favorite series of games were just minor improvements and added features for each successive iteration.  There's no need to constantly reinvent the wheel - when you make a game engine and a game world, you can (and fans who like it will accept, even treasure) take that engine and world and fix a few problems and add a few new features and release a sequel.  It's a pretty time-honored tradition and sells very well.

What isn't time-honored are game series that shake things up each iteration.  Bethesda is one of my favorite examples... Arena to Daggerfall to Morrowind to Oblivion, those games follow a clear progression but if you've played one you've got the playstyle for all of them, more or less.  But wait- there was Battlespire and Red Guard, anyone remember them?  No?  Case closed.  If Battlespire or Red Guard had been successful the Elder Scrolls series would have gone in a different direction.

I will never understand the need to "change everything" for the sake of change.  You are as likely to produce crap as you are to produce gold.  If you are doing a series, consistancy.  If you want to do something new, start a NEW project.

This! "This!" so much it hurts.

[Morty Smith]

twincast wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

Many, many of my favorite series of games were just minor improvements and added features for each successive iteration.  There's no need to constantly reinvent the wheel - when you make a game engine and a game world, you can (and fans who like it will accept, even treasure) take that engine and world and fix a few problems and add a few new features and release a sequel.  It's a pretty time-honored tradition and sells very well.

What isn't time-honored are game series that shake things up each iteration.  Bethesda is one of my favorite examples... Arena to Daggerfall to Morrowind to Oblivion, those games follow a clear progression but if you've played one you've got the playstyle for all of them, more or less.  But wait- there was Battlespire and Red Guard, anyone remember them?  No?  Case closed.  If Battlespire or Red Guard had been successful the Elder Scrolls series would have gone in a different direction.

I will never understand the need to "change everything" for the sake of change.  You are as likely to produce crap as you are to produce gold.  If you are doing a series, consistancy.  If you want to do something new, start a NEW project.

This! "This!" so much it hurts.

Aye.

[FieryDove]

Zanallen wrote...

Change everything? No. But there have to be changes to prevent the franchise from becoming stale.

DAO being the first in the series and it is already stale so change (most) things? It doesn't matter if it was a tight deadline or not. The consumer isn't responsible or cares about that.

Zanallen wrote...

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?

What is laughable is this:
DAO was developed as a PC game and it showed. There were many complaints about it on the console front in case you forgot. I have never known Bioware to be one to say "Oh it works that's good enough". They want people to enjoy the game on whatever platform.

You have your opinion and that's fine, but it appears you just want to bash everyone on the head with it to get your point across. It doesn't work.

[Dormiglione]

MerinTB wrote...


Many, many of my favorite series of games were just minor improvements and added features for each successive iteration.  There's no need to constantly reinvent the wheel - when you make a game engine and a game world, you can (and fans who like it will accept, even treasure) take that engine and world and fix a few problems and add a few new features and release a sequel.  It's a pretty time-honored tradition and sells very well.

What isn't time-honored are game series that shake things up each iteration.  Bethesda is one of my favorite examples... Arena to Daggerfall to Morrowind to Oblivion, those games follow a clear progression but if you've played one you've got the playstyle for all of them, more or less.  But wait- there was Battlespire and Red Guard, anyone remember them?  No?  Case closed.  If Battlespire or Red Guard had been successful the Elder Scrolls series would have gone in a different direction.

I will never understand the need to "change everything" for the sake of change.  You are as likely to produce crap as you are to produce gold.  If you are doing a series, consistancy.  If you want to do something new, start a NEW project.

I second this post. Well said.

[TheRealJayDee]

MerinTB wrote...
Many, many of my favorite series of games were just minor improvements and added features for each successive iteration.  There's no need to constantly reinvent the wheel - when you make a game engine and a game world, you can (and fans who like it will accept, even treasure) take that engine and world and fix a few problems and add a few new features and release a sequel.  It's a pretty time-honored tradition and sells very well.

What isn't time-honored are game series that shake things up each iteration.  Bethesda is one of my favorite examples... Arena to Daggerfall to Morrowind to Oblivion, those games follow a clear progression but if you've played one you've got the playstyle for all of them, more or less.  But wait- there was Battlespire and Red Guard, anyone remember them?  No?  Case closed.  If Battlespire or Red Guard had been successful the Elder Scrolls series would have gone in a different direction.

I will never understand the need to "change everything" for the sake of change.  You are as likely to produce crap as you are to produce gold.  If you are doing a series, consistancy.  If you want to do something new, start a NEW project.

willholt wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

Change everything? No. But there have to be changes to prevent the franchise from becoming stale.

How on earth can a franchise (DA) become stale after one game?... They didn't make wholesale changes after DAO 4 'The Third Coming Of Leliana' ... they made it after one game.

The truth is strong in your posts.

[devSin]

Not to diminish anyone's points, but Dragon Age II uses the same engine as Origins.

Carry on.

[Ariella]

jds1bio wrote...



However, seeing as how the KOA:R release date was just announced, and the way it was announced, leads me to believe that EA has a strong influence on release dates for studios under their umbrella.  Looking at the release calendar for RPGs in 2011 and 2012, I'd say they got this one right with DA2 in terms of maximizing gamers' attention.  Unfortunately, with this we got some recycled environments, the paring of certain story elements, and the unfinished tuning of combat waves.  But while any release date for any game is chosen in the hopes of maximizing the money made, none of this means cash-grab in any way.

It's funny, I'm on the KoA:R forums, and originally it was supposed to be 3rd quarter 2011, then moved to 2012. Thing is, people over there are overjoyed about the date. Excited as can be about it, so EA has moved dates forward. DA2 itself was moved from Feb 2 to March, and I remember all the groaning that entailed.

Would I have been even happier if EA had pulled a Jim Butcher and pushed DA2 to late spring? Don't know, but I do know that we'd have had threads screaming about how late DA2 was...

I guess my biggest question is why EA seems to want to release their RPGs during the First Quarter.

[Nerevar-as]

There was a lot of worrying about the game being rushed with such a short development time, despite some devs assurances to the contrary. The game speaks for itself.

Inon Zur admited he´d had to compose the ST fast as EA wanted the game out fast to capitalize the success of Origins (anybody has the link?), so the game WAS a EA money grab.

[Kreid]

I don't think DA2 was a cash grab, I think BW wanted to do a ggod game but EA was pushing, so they rushed it and had to cut corners, hence DA2.

[Gotholhorakh]

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

Well no, when customers stop buying something it's definitively not their loss, it's the loss of the people they've just stopped buying from!

That said, I think it remains to be proven that any large number of people have "left the franchise" - I think that by and large the DA:O fanbase bought DA2, and if that is the case we won't know until the next game.

(I say remains to be proven, I certainly do think they will and have - my custom is not a given for any future DA game, that's a fact)

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 17 août 2011 - 11:47 .

[dragonfire100]

nitefyre410 wrote...

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 

How about 3 i can bring soup.

[seraphymon]

The OP makes it a point to say that if they came out with DAO2 it may have been cheaper or so, but then remarks to how it wouldnt sell very well. This is a very unknown variable, however if this was all true, then by accounts they would prolly lose money then, that would not be making a buck, but losing a buck. The point is to change just enough to have all these new features, to put in just enough effort to sell for a good profit. Which DA2 may have done anyways considering how much it did sell versus the less time and cost compared with origins.

However the main point is regardless if it wasnt intentional, the fact is even if making a DAO2 would have been cheaper yet, doesnt execuse how rushed DA2 was on its own. Even Bioware or people who have worked on the game or with it like Inon Zur admit to this somewhat. It may not have been their fault exactly, but thats the price you pay trying to make a lenthy good quality RPG. It just cant be done with that amount of time, and be one of the greats.

[IanPolaris]

Creid-X wrote...

I don't think DA2 was a cash grab, I think BW wanted to do a ggod game but EA was pushing, so they rushed it and had to cut corners, hence DA2.

Doesn't that make it a cash grab then (abeit on the part of EA not Bioware itself)?

-Polaris

[Zanallen]

seraphymon wrote...

The OP makes it a point to say that if they came out with DAO2 it may have been cheaper or so, but then remarks to how it wouldnt sell very well. This is a very unknown variable, however if this was all true, then by accounts they would prolly lose money then, that would not be making a buck, but losing a buck. The point is to change just enough to have all these new features, to put in just enough effort to sell for a good profit. Which DA2 may have done anyways considering how much it did sell versus the less time and cost compared with origins.

However the main point is regardless if it wasnt intentional, the fact is even if making a DAO2 would have been cheaper yet, doesnt execuse how rushed DA2 was on its own. Even Bioware or people who have worked on the game or with it like Inon Zur admit to this somewhat. It may not have been their fault exactly, but thats the price you pay trying to make a lenthy good quality RPG. It just cant be done with that amount of time, and be one of the greats.

I didn't say I thought it wouldn't sell well. I said it would have been the cheaper and easier option. Personally, I think it would have sold quite well. DA:O fans would have eaten it up. Granted, they couldn't have done that with a third game, but it woud have worked fine for a quick sequel.