202 réponses à ce sujet

[Zanallen]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

What reason do you have to believe that?  DAO was in development for years without a publisher at all.  I imagine the worst case scenario for BioWare would have been a self-published digital download PC-only release (especially since they already had an online store).  Cancelling the game at that late stage would have been lunacy.

There is a reason that Bioware sold itself to EA. Beyond being able to expand, they obviously needed money to continue developing games. DA:O had been in development for years, yes. And in those years it was draining Bioware. It may have been released anyway in an effort to recoop some losses, but without the decision to make it multiplatform it would have bombed.

[Callidus Thorn]

We don't know if DA:O would have been released without EA. But I'm pretty sure it would never have been started by EA.

[Zanallen]

Callidus Thorn wrote...

We don't know if DA:O would have been released without EA. But I'm pretty sure it would never have been started by EA.

Probably not. Though I am not certain that would have been a bad thing. DA:O is obviously a throwback to a Bioware direction present before KotOR or Jade Empire (Mostly because that is when the game started development). Releasing it kind of threw Bioware's progression out of whack and shifted the perception of the fans.

[FieryDove]

Callidus Thorn wrote...

But I'm pretty sure it would never have been started by EA.

Agree 110%

[eyesofastorm]

Zanallen wrote...

Callidus Thorn wrote...

We don't know if DA:O would have been released without EA. But I'm pretty sure it would never have been started by EA.

Probably not. Though I am not certain that would have been a bad thing. DA:O is obviously a throwback to a Bioware direction present before KotOR or Jade Empire (Mostly because that is when the game started development). Releasing it kind of threw Bioware's progression out of whack and shifted the perception of the fans.

*is speechless*

[eyesofastorm]

*sharpens his sword and applies his warpaint*

Modifié par eyesofastorm, 24 août 2011 - 10:33 .

[Zanallen]

eyesofastorm wrote...

*is speechless*

What? You can't argue that DA:O is an odd outlier when you look at the progression of Bioware games from KotOR to ME2. And it really doesn't match their stated direction or goals.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Zanallen wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

*is speechless*

What? You can't argue that DA:O is an odd outlier when you look at the progression of Bioware games from KotOR to ME2. And it really doesn't match their stated direction or goals.

DAO demonstrates that BioWare is able to make more than one kind of game at  a time.  There's no need for all of their games to move in the same "direction" or to have similar designs.

[FieryDove]

Zanallen wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

*is speechless*

What? You can't argue that DA:O is an odd outlier when you look at the progression of Bioware games from KotOR to ME2. And it really doesn't match their stated direction or goals.

I can.

Your all-seeing eye is broken. They started DAO for PC fans because said fans throught OMG Bio has left them for *consoles*. They abandoned us! They have betrayed us! etc. The relationship with Bio and MS at the time was very cuddly.

No more real RPG's! was also a worry. (For some)

Modifié par FieryDove, 24 août 2011 - 10:40 .

[eyesofastorm]

Zanallen wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

*is speechless*

What? You can't argue that DA:O is an odd outlier when you look at the progression of Bioware games from KotOR to ME2. And it really doesn't match their stated direction or goals.

You just said my favorite game of the last decade was a mistake because it made fans believe that Bioware could and would still make deep, massive, immersive party-based, tactical role-playing games.  If there was a mistake, it was that Bioware didn't see that there was actually a viable market for such games.  

[Callidus Thorn]

Then shouldn't the sales figures for Origins made them think it was perhaps, if not a better direction, at the least a viable one? The fact that it was an "outlier" or a "throwback" contributed in no small part to it's success

[FieryDove]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

There's no need for all of their games to move in the same "direction" or to have similar designs.

This is the need now however. Thanks EA...I guess?

[Zanallen]

Callidus Thorn wrote...

Then shouldn't the sales figures for Origins made them think it was perhaps, if not a better direction, at the least a viable one? The fact that it was an "outlier" or a "throwback" contributed in no small part to it's success

Not necessarily. Sure, it sold well, but what about profit? How profitable was DA:O? Keep in mind that Bioware made two other games in the same amount of time it took to make DA:O.

[Zanallen]

FieryDove wrote...

I can.

Your all-seeing eye is broken. They started DAO for PC fans because said fans throught OMG Bio has left them for *consoles*. They abandoned us! They have betrayed us! etc. The relationship with Bio and MS at the time was very cuddly.

No more real RPG's! was also a worry. (For some)

And if DA:O was PC only, they wouldn't have made any profit on it. Also, the "real RPG" argument is moot. If you asked ten people what constitutes a RPG you will get ten different answers.

[Callidus Thorn]

Zanallen wrote...

Callidus Thorn wrote...

Then shouldn't the sales figures for Origins made them think it was perhaps, if not a better direction, at the least a viable one? The fact that it was an "outlier" or a "throwback" contributed in no small part to it's success

Not necessarily. Sure, it sold well, but what about profit? How profitable was DA:O? Keep in mind that Bioware made two other games in the same amount of time it took to make DA:O.

True, but then again they built DA:O from scratch, making a sequel similar to it would've taken less time and money to make than DA:O did. And could've been expected to sell in a relatively similar manner.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Zanallen wrote...

Not necessarily. Sure, it sold well, but what about profit? How profitable was DA:O? Keep in mind that Bioware made two other games in the same amount of time it took to make DA:O.

A lot of that development time was world-building though.  And as a new IP it had no brand recognition.

Any success DA2 had was at least partly caused by the development of DAO.  Comparing the two without considering that overlap is terribly shallow analysis.

[eyesofastorm]

Zanallen wrote...

Callidus Thorn wrote...

Then shouldn't the sales figures for Origins made them think it was perhaps, if not a better direction, at the least a viable one? The fact that it was an "outlier" or a "throwback" contributed in no small part to it's success

Not necessarily. Sure, it sold well, but what about profit? How profitable was DA:O? Keep in mind that Bioware made two other games in the same amount of time it took to make DA:O.

This line of thought quickly turns into a hurricane of speculation.  I can say (with a degree of certainty) that DA:O was in development for far longer than it needed to be for various reasons.  I can also specualate that a large percentage DA2's sales were due directly to DA:O's successes.  But none of it matters in the grand scheme because none of it can be proven.

My point is that DA:O was NOT a mistake and  I'll have words with anyone who says otherwise.  What matters is there obviously WAS a market for DA:O and the development formula just needed to be tightened up rather than changed completely.  

[Zanallen]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

DAO demonstrates that BioWare is able to make more than one kind of game at  a time.  There's no need for all of their games to move in the same "direction" or to have similar designs.

Not when the different type of game takes five years and they can release multiple games and gain more profit in that same amount of time. Do DA and ME have to be exactly alike? No and they are not. There can be more differences, sure. However, DA:O type games take too damn long and I really don't think they are worth it when it comes to profit. A mish-mash of Origins and DA2 could work well. And a two to two and a half year development cycle would be plenty of time to make a great game.

[Zanallen]

eyesofastorm wrote...

This line of thought quickly turns into a hurricane of speculation.  I can say (with a degree of certainty) that DA:O was in development for far longer than it needed to be for various reasons.  I can also specualate that a large percentage DA2's sales were due directly to DA:O's successes.  But none of it matters in the grand scheme because none of it can be proven.

My point is that DA:O was NOT a mistake and  I'll have words with anyone who says otherwise.  What matters is there obviously WAS a market for DA:O and the development formula just needed to be tightened up rather than changed completely.  

But it WAS a throwback to an earlier time of Bioware games and NOT the direction that they are currently looking for when it comes to game design.

[eyesofastorm]

Zanallen wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

DAO demonstrates that BioWare is able to make more than one kind of game at  a time.  There's no need for all of their games to move in the same "direction" or to have similar designs.

Not when the different type of game takes five years and they can release multiple games and gain more profit in that same amount of time. Do DA and ME have to be exactly alike? No and they are not. There can be more differences, sure. However, DA:O type games take too damn long and I really don't think they are worth it when it comes to profit. A mish-mash of Origins and DA2 could work well. And a two to two and a half year development cycle would be plenty of time to make a great game.

And I would argue that a DAO type game could be made in 30 months as easily as a DA2 type game.

[Zanallen]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

A lot of that development time was world-building though.  And as a new IP it had no brand recognition.

Any success DA2 had was at least partly caused by the development of DAO.  Comparing the two without considering that overlap is terribly shallow analysis.

I'm not comparing it to DA2. I'm comparing it to the other games that Bioware was able to release in the same time it took them to make DA:O. Which includes ME1, also a new IP.

[eyesofastorm]

Zanallen wrote...

But it WAS a throwback to an earlier time of Bioware games and NOT the direction that they are currently looking for when it comes to game design.

That, in no way, coincides with the definition of "mistake".  

[maxernst]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

Not necessarily. Sure, it sold well, but what about profit? How profitable was DA:O? Keep in mind that Bioware made two other games in the same amount of time it took to make DA:O.

A lot of that development time was world-building though.  And as a new IP it had no brand recognition.

Any success DA2 had was at least partly caused by the development of DAO.  Comparing the two without considering that overlap is terribly shallow analysis.

And they also built an engine for it, unlike Mass Effect which used the Unreal Engine.  And we don't know the size of the development teams working on the games, either.  A game may take twice as long but have fewer man-hours invested in it.  I can't see why the style of game that DA:O represented should be inherently more expensive to make.  All we really know about its economics is that it was repeatedly described as a tremendous success in press releases. 

[Zanallen]

eyesofastorm wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

But it WAS a throwback to an earlier time of Bioware games and NOT the direction that they are currently looking for when it comes to game design.

That, in no way, coincides with the definition of "mistake".  

I never said it was. I said exactly what I said right there. Throwback. No longer the same direction. Throws off the progression Bioware has been working towards. No one said DA:O was a mistake.

[Zanallen]

eyesofastorm wrote...

And I would argue that a DAO type game could be made in 30 months as easily as a DA2 type game.

Possibly. And with a 30 month dev time, DA2 could have outshown Origins completely and we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

Modifié par Zanallen, 24 août 2011 - 11:00 .