166 réponses à ce sujet

[Realmzmaster]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. If you dislike the game and think it is a cash grab well good for you. I will wait to see who takes EA to court over DA2.

[Ariella]

IanPolaris wrote...

Ariella wrote...

Ah but there's a difference between disliking a game and making accusations that the game was rushed just to make a huge profit. The latter requires proof, or have you ever heard of Libel?

Please don't use words like "Libel" unless you really know what you are talking about.  Speculating (especially with the circumstantial evidence available) that EA/Bioware wanted to make a "Cash Grab" may be insulting, but it's not libel.  The Libel standard are tough and unforgiving for public figures and that includes publically traded corporations.  There is more than enough defense for the "it's not libel if it's true" defense (since you only have to show that you reasonably believe it to be true).

-Polaris

I know very well what libel is, and the fact that the kinds of baseless accusations here could ruin the reputation of a company as well as individuals involved.

Thing is, none of the accusations are reasonable. There's no real reason for quite a bit of the venom we've seen on this issue EXCEPT for emotions getting in the way of rational thought.

[seraphymon]

Again your not gonna find hard proof, and its not just here but in other games where its even more obvious. because what counts as hard proof is in the eyes of the person. Its not like people are stating this as a cold hard fact, but its our opinions. Theres reasons for disliking something that doesnt lead to being rushed, however some decisions or changes and reasons given or how it was implemented are all things we look at when we assume theres reasons for such.

There is such thing as common sense where you dont need the hard proof to put 2 and 2 together. Its just easy to deny or dismiss when there is no smoking gun. To me Brent knowles knew the direction DA2 was taking. Not so much in the link given but in other posts and links by him. The cash grab i blame EA for, as for Mike i dont hate or blame him i just think his visions doesnt belong in the DA universe based on what he says and thinks.

[Gunderic]

Ariella wrote...

Gunderic wrote...

Ariella wrote...

Gunderic wrote...

Ariella wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

There are several ways to quicly cash in on DA:O's success. One of the obvious ones is to reduce development costs and development time. Here is what I wrote about that in one of the groups...

*snip*

This is based on a lot of assumptions and circumstancial evidence at best. If they were going to reduce cost and dev time, why revamp the entire engine. That takes time to develop and train, learning curve might not be as steep but it's a major change.

As for race, what physical or vocal proof is there that this was done as a cost saving measure and not because it was dictated by the story?

"Not choosing race is a Very Bad Thing and has everything to do with cinematic limitations — characters with different heights and sizes are difficult to build cinematic conversation for — as well the choice impacts the amount of dialog that needs to be written. But aliens and fantasy races are cool. Humans are boring (except my kids and my wife and some of you… you know who you are).

As for the dialog itself, its what I expected. Some of it is visually beautiful but interactive movies have never been the kinds of games I wanted to play. So kudos to the team for the great work but, as always, I kind of wish the huge effort I know it takes to build those cinematic experiences could be spent on gameplay."

You care to give the source of the quote. If it's Brent Knowles, that's his opinion as he was not part of the Dev team for DA2. I'm asking for facts, not opinions of people who aren't in the know.

It is Brent Knowles:

http://blog.brentkno...gon-age-2-demo/

He knew where the project was headed more or less, which is why he quit. I don't think you're going to get a more reliable source than someone who should've been the lead designer for both games and can speak freely without being constrained by obligations toward his former employer.

He didn't know since he left right after DAO when they were first beginning to throw ideas around. He had nothing to do with the actual development of the game, and thus isn't a good horse to pick in this race.

I disagree; he was aware of the direction the project was headed. If nothing would've been set in stone, I don't think he would have left so early on.

This has nothing to do with Dragon Age 2 exclusively though. He's a designer; he should be able to have insight into design issues regardless of whether or not he was directly involved in a project, especially with things like cinematic design and its limitations, considering he worked at BioWare of all places.

Modifié par Gunderic, 18 août 2011 - 07:22 .

[Ariella]

[quote]seraphymon wrote...

Again your not gonna find hard proof, and its not just here but in other games where its even more obvious. because what counts as hard proof is in the eyes of the person. Its not like people are stating this as a cold hard fact, but its our opinions. Theres reasons for disliking something that doesnt lead to being rushed, however some decisions or changes and reasons given or how it was implemented are all things we look at when we assume theres reasons for such.
[/quote]

It's not hard proof, just more opinion. However the people stating this ARE acting as if their opinions are factual. How anyone could come up with the whole cash grab idea without facts, is beyond me, unless it is an emotional reaction, thus has nothing to do with anything. You can't prove an emotional reaction.

[/quote]
There is such thing as common sense where you dont need the hard proof to put 2 and 2 together. Its just easy to deny or dismiss when there is no smoking gun. To me Brent knowles knew the direction DA2 was taking. Not so much in the link given but in other posts and links by him. The cash grab i blame EA for, as for Mike i dont hate or blame him i just think his visions doesnt belong in the DA universe based on what he says and thinks.[/quote]

Common sense isn't all that common, and Brent Knowles wasn't there for the developement of the game, thus he doesn't know why the choices were made the way they were, nor does he know anything more about the time and budget constrants the Dev team may or may not have been laboring under. He's not a first person witness, and trying to use him as such is disengenious.

[IanPolaris]

Ariella wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Ariella wrote...

Ah but there's a difference between disliking a game and making accusations that the game was rushed just to make a huge profit. The latter requires proof, or have you ever heard of Libel?

Please don't use words like "Libel" unless you really know what you are talking about.  Speculating (especially with the circumstantial evidence available) that EA/Bioware wanted to make a "Cash Grab" may be insulting, but it's not libel.  The Libel standard are tough and unforgiving for public figures and that includes publically traded corporations.  There is more than enough defense for the "it's not libel if it's true" defense (since you only have to show that you reasonably believe it to be true).

-Polaris

I know very well what libel is, and the fact that the kinds of baseless accusations here could ruin the reputation of a company as well as individuals involved.

Thing is, none of the accusations are reasonable. There's no real reason for quite a bit of the venom we've seen on this issue EXCEPT for emotions getting in the way of rational thought.

I don't think you do know what Libel is based on what you just said.  The fact that we can quote supposed insiders (people who reasonably might be expected to have inside knowledge) and can point to evidence of rushed developement MAKES the charge of a "Cash Grab" reasonable in a legal sense.  Because BW/EA is a public entity, they would not only have to PROVE that the statements were lies, but have to show that the people saying them KNEW they were lies and were done for malicious intent. (The italicized part doesn't count for private citizens which makes Libel much easier to win as a private citizen).

That's an impossible bar in this case and I believe EA's legal eagles know it.

-Polaris

[Realmzmaster]

seraphymon wrote...

Again your not gonna find hard proof, and its not just here but in other games where its even more obvious. because what counts as hard proof is in the eyes of the person. Its not like people are stating this as a cold hard fact, but its our opinions. Theres reasons for disliking something that doesnt lead to being rushed, however some decisions or changes and reasons given or how it was implemented are all things we look at when we assume theres reasons for such.

There is such thing as common sense where you dont need the hard proof to put 2 and 2 together. Its just easy to deny or dismiss when there is no smoking gun. To me Brent knowles knew the direction DA2 was taking. Not so much in the link given but in other posts and links by him. The cash grab i blame EA for, as for Mike i dont hate or blame him i just think his visions doesnt belong in the DA universe based on what he says and thinks.

The only thing that counts in the eyes of the law is hard proof. You and I do not know what was going on in Mr. Knowles head. Nor are we privy to anything except what he has written in his blog. You can make assumptions, but that is all and they reamin assumptions without proof.

The OP stated his reason why he did not believe it was a cash grab. Others are free to accept or reject those reasons. It is all conjecture and opinion.

[Envor44]

More of topic like this? I was worried this community might be better, oh well.

[Ariella]

Gunderic wrote...

I disagree; he was aware of the direction the project was headed into. If nothing would've been set in stone, I don't think he would have left so early on.

This has nothing to do with Dragon Age 2 exclusively though. He's a designer; he should be able to have insight into design issues regardless of him having worked on a project or not.

He had a vague idea where the project was headed, he didn't know considering that they werre just beginning to pitch ideas around the time he left.

He may be a designer, but claiming that the only reason one would not include more races is cinematic in nature is crap. There are a lot of reasons, one of the major ones being it just didn't fit the story. Again, it an opinion.

[seraphymon]

Ariella wrote...


It's not hard proof, just more opinion. However the people stating this ARE acting as if their opinions are factual. How anyone could come up with the whole cash grab idea without facts, is beyond me, unless it is an emotional reaction, thus has nothing to do with anything. You can't prove an emotional reaction.


Common sense isn't all that common, and Brent Knowles wasn't there for the developement of the game, thus he doesn't know why the choices were made the way they were, nor does he know anything more about the time and budget constrants the Dev team may or may not have been laboring under. He's not a first person witness, and trying to use him as such is disengenious.

Just because you dont get it doesnt mean anything. We arent trying to prove anything to you or change your mind. Just as much as we cant understand why some people like this or that. People dont always need reasons for them even.

Brent Knowles may not have been there after he left and saw what exactly went down, but based on how DA2 came out, what he predicted came true. So obviously he knew the direction it was going in and it was enough, simple as that.

[IanPolaris]

Realmzmaster wrote...


The only thing that counts in the eyes of the law is hard proof.

Now we both know that isn't strictly accurate esp in Slander and Libel cases......

You and I do not know what was going on in Mr. Knowles head. Nor are we privy to anything except what he has written in his blog. You can make assumptions, but that is all and they reamin assumptions without proof.

You aren't required to have proof to have a protected opinion.  You only have to be reasonably sure that it's true to the best of your knowledge.

The OP stated his reason why he did not believe it was a cash grab. Others are free to accept or reject those reasons. It is all conjecture and opinion.

Indeed and opinion is protected by law both in the US and Canada (and for that matter most of the Western World).

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 18 août 2011 - 07:26 .

[Gunderic]

Ariella wrote...

Gunderic wrote...

I disagree; he was aware of the direction the project was headed into. If nothing would've been set in stone, I don't think he would have left so early on.

This has nothing to do with Dragon Age 2 exclusively though. He's a designer; he should be able to have insight into design issues regardless of him having worked on a project or not.

He had a vague idea where the project was headed, he didn't know considering that they werre just beginning to pitch ideas around the time he left.

He may be a designer, but claiming that the only reason one would not include more races is cinematic in nature is crap. There are a lot of reasons, one of the major ones being it just didn't fit the story. Again, it an opinion.

Discussion on Dragon Age 2 began around this time and looking ahead I knew that I wasn't going to be satisfied with what Dragon Age 2 would be. Party control/tactical combat are huge factors in my enjoyment of a role-playing game as is adopting the role of the hero (i.e., customizing my character). I was fairly certain Dragon Age would transition towards more of a Mass Effect experience, which while enjoyable is not the type of role-playing game I play. Could I be the lead designer on such a title? Certainly... though if I were going to work on a game adopting a set-in-stone protagonist I'd rather work on something lighter, like a shooter.

[Realmzmaster]

IanPolaris wrote...

Ariella wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Ariella wrote...

Ah but there's a difference between disliking a game and making accusations that the game was rushed just to make a huge profit. The latter requires proof, or have you ever heard of Libel?

Please don't use words like "Libel" unless you really know what you are talking about.  Speculating (especially with the circumstantial evidence available) that EA/Bioware wanted to make a "Cash Grab" may be insulting, but it's not libel.  The Libel standard are tough and unforgiving for public figures and that includes publically traded corporations.  There is more than enough defense for the "it's not libel if it's true" defense (since you only have to show that you reasonably believe it to be true).

-Polaris

I know very well what libel is, and the fact that the kinds of baseless accusations here could ruin the reputation of a company as well as individuals involved.

Thing is, none of the accusations are reasonable. There's no real reason for quite a bit of the venom we've seen on this issue EXCEPT for emotions getting in the way of rational thought.

I don't think you do know what Libel is based on what you just said.  The fact that we can quote supposed insiders (people who reasonably might be expected to have inside knowledge) and can point to evidence of rushed developement MAKES the charge of a "Cash Grab" reasonable in a legal sense.  Because BW/EA is a public entity, they would not only have to PROVE that the statements were lies, but have to show that the people saying them KNEW they were lies and were done for malicious intent. (The italicized part doesn't count for private citizens which makes Libel much easier to win as a private citizen).

That's an impossible bar in this case and I believe EA's legal eagles know it.

-Polaris

EA has no reason to sue anyone on this forum. It would be a waste of time and money. Far better to let people blow off steam and vent. Now if said person was threating a developer as some have done in other posts that could be considered criminal and could be turn over to the authorities.

The only action the Bioware developers took was to ban those individuals and let them think about their stupidity.

[Realmzmaster]

IanPolaris wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...


The only thing that counts in the eyes of the law is hard proof.

Now we both know that isn't strictly accurate esp in Slander and Libel cases......

You and I do not know what was going on in Mr. Knowles head. Nor are we privy to anything except what he has written in his blog. You can make assumptions, but that is all and they reamin assumptions without proof.

You aren't required to have proof to have a protected opinion.  You only have to be reasonably sure that it's true to the best of your knowledge.

The OP stated his reason why he did not believe it was a cash grab. Others are free to accept or reject those reasons. It is all conjecture and opinion.

Indeed and opinion is protected by law both in the US and Canada (and for that matter most of the Western World).

-Polaris

You still need some form of proof to win a slander or libel case. Without it your suit will get either dismissed or your will lose the case. You might be able to persuade a jury in a civil case, but I seriously doubt a judge would view it the same way.

Opinion is protected, but I would not try to prove anything with it.

[Ariella]

IanPolaris wrote...

Ariella wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Ariella wrote...

Ah but there's a difference between disliking a game and making accusations that the game was rushed just to make a huge profit. The latter requires proof, or have you ever heard of Libel?

Please don't use words like "Libel" unless you really know what you are talking about.  Speculating (especially with the circumstantial evidence available) that EA/Bioware wanted to make a "Cash Grab" may be insulting, but it's not libel.  The Libel standard are tough and unforgiving for public figures and that includes publically traded corporations.  There is more than enough defense for the "it's not libel if it's true" defense (since you only have to show that you reasonably believe it to be true).

-Polaris

I know very well what libel is, and the fact that the kinds of baseless accusations here could ruin the reputation of a company as well as individuals involved.

Thing is, none of the accusations are reasonable. There's no real reason for quite a bit of the venom we've seen on this issue EXCEPT for emotions getting in the way of rational thought.

I don't think you do know what Libel is based on what you just said.  The fact that we can quote supposed insiders (people who reasonably might be expected to have inside knowledge) and can point to evidence of rushed developement MAKES the charge of a "Cash Grab" reasonable in a legal sense.  Because BW/EA is a public entity, they would not only have to PROVE that the statements were lies, but have to show that the people saying them KNEW they were lies and were done for malicious intent. (The italicized part doesn't count for private citizens which makes Libel much easier to win as a private citizen).

That's an impossible bar in this case and I believe EA's legal eagles know it.

-Polaris

EA's not going to bother, and I have a better idea of what libel is and what it can do if left uncheck than you do.

Note: you say supposed insiders. That would be Brent Knowles and Ian Zur, correct? Well, Brent was there for the very beginning and gave his opinion, Ion is a contractor and not privy to the inner workings of EA, and even then he said it was rushed, but not WHY. Which is why the terminology people are using is so immportant.

[IanPolaris]

Realmzmaster wrote...

You still need some form of proof to win a slander or libel case. Without it your suit will get either dismissed or your will lose the case. You might be able to persuade a jury in a civil case, but I seriously doubt a judge would view it the same way.

Opinion is protected, but I would not try to prove anything with it.

Point missing it.  The people claiming that it was a "Cash Grab" would be the defendants.  Another poster said that some of us were making Libelous statements.

Frankly, no.  No one on either side has crossed that particular line.

-Polaris

[seraphymon]

What it comes down to, is that people have their own opinions of wether they think DA2 was a cash grab or not and have their reasons, wether they are resonable or legitimate or not. No one has any solid smoking gun proof, and only circumstantial stuff. but neither can anyone else really prove that it wasn't. Even if EA or Bioware claim its not because they cant saying anything bad about their game that would impact sales. thats why we still see all this PR BS.

[Ariella]

IanPolaris wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

You still need some form of proof to win a slander or libel case. Without it your suit will get either dismissed or your will lose the case. You might be able to persuade a jury in a civil case, but I seriously doubt a judge would view it the same way.

Opinion is protected, but I would not try to prove anything with it.

Point missing it.  The people claiming that it was a "Cash Grab" would be the defendants.  Another poster said that some of us were making Libelous statements.

Frankly, no.  No one on either side has crossed that particular line.

-Polaris

Polaris, stop worrying about the courts and study some history. There are numbers of examples where libel wasn't just a legal term, and its reprocusions were terrible. Thus the reason why it's bad to make statements without proof to back them up.

[Ariella]

seraphymon wrote...

What it comes down to, is that people have their own opinions of wether they think DA2 was a cash grab or not and have their reasons, wether they are resonable or legitimate or not. No one has any solid smoking gun proof, and only circumstantial stuff. but neither can anyone else really prove that it wasn't. Even if EA or Bioware claim its not because they cant saying anything bad about their game that would impact sales. thats why we still see all this PR BS.

Fine have your opinions, but don't try and make them look like facts as they aren't.

[seraphymon]

i never said they were. and im sure some dont either. Some may no matter what it is. Not just for this but in anything. Even ones that say "this change should be this way because its the best way"

[AngryFrozenWater]

Ariella wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

There are several ways to quicly cash in on DA:O's success. One of the obvious ones is to reduce development costs and development time. Here is what I wrote about that in one of the groups...

*snip*

This is based on a lot of assumptions and circumstancial evidence at best. If they were going to reduce cost and dev time, why revamp the entire engine. That takes time to develop and train, learning curve might not be as steep but it's a major change.

As for race, what physical or vocal proof is there that this was done as a cost saving measure and not because it was dictated by the story?

One of the biggest complaints on DAO was the generic look of everything. They completely revamped the art, and redid all of the armor types. Also by giving the companions their own look, it helps give idenity.

It is quite possible ALL of these actions were taken for artistic and story reasons rather than just cost cutting.

The ONLY thing I see as a cost/time saving measure is the map resuse, but that's it.

Again, all any of us can do is assume, and depending on our natures we'll see the glass half full or empty, but none of it is fact. We don't know the facts, we don't know what happened at the budget meetings, nor do we know the reasons why EA scheduled DA2 the way it did.

You seem to forget that you don't have proof for the reasons of the new "features" either. You tend to believe what the devs and marketing said. I tend to believe that those are rationalizations translated in marketing terms to sell the cost savings operation to us. Maybe I should have been more clear about that. In that light read the following paragraph again.

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Obviously it is possible to dream up the story and then decide to use multiple races for the PC or not. Chances are that it is unlikely we'll see multiple races for the PC, given the above advantages of cost reduction. About the uniqueness of the companion armor: Sure, there will be some people who are happy with how the the companions look. Perhaps some don't care at all and are in it for the combat only. Others, like me, don't think that filling 4 squares by buying or finding "upgrades" constitutes as meaningful customization. Of course BW knows this, and the 4 squares are just intended to ensure that "customization" exists.

The short development time and the rushed state the game was in are pointing in the same direction, Ariella. I just looked at what things are visible to me and tried to connect the dots. The evidence is there: Companion armor, the armor found in loot that only has to fit a human, human only PC and its effects on the story and dialogue, no origin story, etc. I am just connecting the dots here. Again, all these things can be dismissed one by one. It's the total picture that leads me to theories like these. Here is another...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Did you ever wonder why the attribute system was overhauled? And did you ever wonder why dual wielding and archery were dropped from the warrior? What about the removal of skills?

After thinking about it for a while it looks like those questions are part of the same cost savings operation. They are related.

Here are some of the problems BW faced.

In DA:O there was the so called dexterity bug which caused problems for dual wielding. It was fixed by a patch way too late. That same bug was partially fixed for archery. That needed to be fixed properly in DA3. Similar bugs existed for other weapons with special features.

In DA2 a new talent/spell tree system was planned. The talents and spells had to be rewritten for the most part. The underlying system was complex, also because of dual wielding and archery which can use different attributes for its damage calculation. They had to be flexible that way, because warriors and rogues have different main attributes.

The various skills in DA:O were also part of the many formulas in the game and were mixed with other attributes where appropriate.

So, to make this operation cost effective the system had to be simplified drastically. To reduce the amount of work it is easy to understand that dual wielding and archery for warriors had to be cut from the game. That would simplify the formulas for the rogue's weapons and these weapons didn't have to work with the warrior's primary attribute anymore. The same goes for some of the skills. These had to go as well. That too simplified the formulas.

The attributes could be given a more consistent function. Compare the Attributes for Origins and Attributes for DA2.

That new attribute system also allowed easier refactoring (rewriting) of the talent and spell trees, because they also can effect weapons and are dependent on attributes. And both of these were simplified.

Can we see dual wielding and archery for warriors back for DA3? Most likely not. It would again effect the other systems dependent on it. Too much work. The same is true for the skills that effect other systems. It's likely that we never see them again either.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 18 août 2011 - 01:05 .

[rak72]

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

Yea, it is my loss ... since they already grabbed my cash

[Il Divo]

Zanallen wrote...

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.

Ah, but here you are making a rather large assumption: that changing the combat system was not itself a cash grab. If Origins was a traditional, old school RPG, that's going to have a fan base. If a sequel is produced with the same combat system,  it's probably going to retain that fan base. Dragon Age 2's more "fast paced" gameplay clearly was not designed to appeal to just the Origins audience, as a great deal of customization/play styles were restricted. Watch the developer video where Laidlaw showcases both the real-time and tactical play styles to get my meaning here. The goal would be to out-sell Origins, which is more likely if they can retain the original fan base while appealing to a new demographic.

Now, here's an interesting issue. Consider a series like Knights of the Old Republic. Its sequel, Sith Lords, relied on the exact same engine, rule system, and gameplay mechanics which its predecessor did. Instead, Obsidian chose to keep all that and just expand (new Force Powers, new Feats, lightsaber forms, etc), which ultimately saved money.

Imagine if Bioware had followed a similar design. Keep the Origins system, tinker with new powers/talents, maybe add a few more execution animations/Specializations. Hell, even keep most of the same low level items. That alone would probably take care of most of the criticisms of DA2 from a gameplay stand point. And this would all be resources which could be put towards:

1) Better/more unique environments in Kirkwall.

2) Dedicated companion conversations.

3) A more focused narrative.

4) Other.

The same audience would have purchased the game, but it would have felt more in-keeping with a sequel and Bioware could have focused on those less than stellar game elements. As it stands, Dragon Age 2 launched ~1 year after Awakening and a year + 4 months after Origins. Given the time frame/resources of Dragon Age 2, successfully revamping the combat system, voiced protagonist, and the art style while retaining other game elements simply was not likely.

Yes, I personally think Dragon Age 2 was a cash grab given the narrow time frame and new style employed. Having said that, I still thought it was a fun game, but suffered from being overly ambitious.

Modifié par Il Divo, 18 août 2011 - 02:06 .

[Everwarden]

Zanallen wrote...
It is asinine and really does Bioware a diservice.

No, not really. The evidence we have suggests that Dragon Age 2 was a cash grab. It had cut corners and a small timetable relative to the original.

Why alter the engine? Why change game mechanics? Why change the art style?

I wish they hadn't, honestly. All the effort spent on redoing the engine and style wasted time that could have been used fixing the horrible third act and making Dragon Age 2 a really good game. The effort was wasted, in any event, because Dragon Age 2 had bland, uninspired graphics. 

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

Honestly, I think the sequel you just proposed would have been better. 

They were ambitious,

They certainly used an ambitious number of cut corners and hoped no one would notice.

[dragonfire100]

Guys dont blame bioware for that blame EA just saying.