202 réponses à ce sujet

[eyesofastorm]

Zanallen wrote...

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.

Are you saying they shouldn't have done it?  Are you saying it was a bad decision?  I make inferences from what you say.  This is the way of communication.  

[FieryDove]

Zanallen wrote...

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.

Me1 didn't need to make a new engine. In fact if you played rebublic commando many of the assets/game-play seemed oddly similar. (Same engine)

Modifié par FieryDove, 24 août 2011 - 11:02 .

[Zanallen]

eyesofastorm wrote...

Are you saying they shouldn't have done it?  Are you saying it was a bad decision?  I make inferences from what you say.  This is the way of communication.  

I'm saying that it screwed up the progression of game development that Bioware has been moving towards since KotOR and that it altered the fans' perceptions of what Bioware wants to do with their games. On the other hand, releasing it helped recoop five years of otherwise wasted development time and produced a new IP for Bioware. If the game had been finished and released within a reasonable time frame or if Bioware was still planning on making games like Origins, there would be no problems. However, it wasn't and they aren't.

[maxernst]

Zanallen wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

Are you saying they shouldn't have done it?  Are you saying it was a bad decision?  I make inferences from what you say.  This is the way of communication.  

I'm saying that it screwed up the progression of game development that Bioware has been moving towards since KotOR and that it altered the fans' perceptions of what Bioware wants to do with their games. On the other hand, releasing it helped recoop five years of otherwise wasted development time and produced a new IP for Bioware. If the game had been finished and released within a reasonable time frame or if Bioware was still planning on making games like Origins, there would be no problems. However, it wasn't and they aren't.

What's your evidence that it was not considered to be finished and released within a reasonable time frame?  When it was announced, it was supposed to be a PC-only, winter 2007/early 2008 game.  It was released a year and a half later than that, but they released it on several platforms, so I would guess that the extra development time was compensated for by the sales it received on those other platforms.

[Zanallen]

maxernst wrote...


What's your evidence that it was not considered to be finished and released within a reasonable time frame?  When it was announced, it was supposed to be a PC-only, winter 2007/early 2008 game.  It was released a year and a half later than that, but they released it on several platforms, so I would guess that the extra development time was compensated for by the sales it received on those other platforms.

I wouldn't consider five years to be reasonable, honestly. Now, yes, the game was mostly finished when they decided to create console ports, but did the poor console ports really take a year and a half? Seems long to me. But that being said, three and a half years would have been a bit more reasonable. KotOR took about three years to make and it also had a new engine. Of course, the PC port for KotOR only took a few months after the X-Box version was released.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Zanallen wrote...

Of course, the PC port for KotOR only took a few months after the X-Box version was released.

I would think porting to PC would be a lot easier.  Fewer hardware constraints.  Fewer input limitations.  No size restrictions.

Imagine if you built a game solely for the PC, and then, when it was mostly done, decided to port it to consoles.  The game might require more different inputs than the controllers allow.  The game might not support a 640*480 display resolution.  The game might not fit on the proscribed number of media discs.  The game might require more central or graphical processing power than the consoles possess.

Obviously converting to the more powerful, more versatile platform would be easier.  The only increased burden would be QA because of the greater number of possible hardware configurations to test.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

Of course, the PC port for KotOR only took a few months after the X-Box version was released.

I would think porting to PC would be a lot easier.  Fewer hardware constraints.  Fewer input limitations.  No size restrictions.

Imagine if you built a game solely for the PC, and then, when it was mostly done, decided to port it to consoles.  The game might require more different inputs than the controllers allow.  The game might not support a 640*480 display resolution.  The game might not fit on the proscribed number of media discs.  The game might require more central or graphical processing power than the consoles possess.

Obviously converting to the more powerful, more versatile platform would be easier.  The only increased burden would be QA because of the greater number of possible hardware configurations to test.

This is how it's basically done for most games.

They develop for the 360, then scale upwards for the PC. DA 2 was built like this, for example. It hinders technological advancements, but it's easier to do.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 25 août 2011 - 12:12 .

[Tommy6860]

mrcrusty wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

Of course, the PC port for KotOR only took a few months after the X-Box version was released.

I would think porting to PC would be a lot easier.  Fewer hardware constraints.  Fewer input limitations.  No size restrictions.

Imagine if you built a game solely for the PC, and then, when it was mostly done, decided to port it to consoles.  The game might require more different inputs than the controllers allow.  The game might not support a 640*480 display resolution.  The game might not fit on the proscribed number of media discs.  The game might require more central or graphical processing power than the consoles possess.

Obviously converting to the more powerful, more versatile platform would be easier.  The only increased burden would be QA because of the greater number of possible hardware configurations to test.

This is how it's basically done for most games.

They develop for the 360, then scale upwards for the PC. DA 2 was built like this, for example. It hinders technological advancements, but it's easier to do.

Porting to PC is definitely easier from a hardware perspective. Consoles have a set array of hardwares to work with when developing, so that's all devs need to take into account. PCs however, can have a multitude of various video cards, CPUs and monitor sizes to account for, while having to test them under quite of a few of those set-ups.

[MerinTB]

mrcrusty wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Zanallen wrote...
Of course, the PC port for KotOR only took a few months after the X-Box version was released.

I would think porting to PC would be a lot easier.  Fewer hardware constraints.  Fewer input limitations.  No size restrictions.

This is how it's basically done for most games.

They develop for the 360, then scale upwards for the PC. DA 2 was built like this, for example. It hinders technological advancements, but it's easier to do.

GAH!

KotOR was initially a project imagined for "PC and next-gen consoles" - as quoted here - and the developers at BioWare opted for the XBOX as it was "basically a concrete set of PC compononents in a box."
The work was done on the PC first, then PC and XBOX, then the XBOX was finished but the PC version still needed tweaking (reason: XBOX's all have nearly identical hardware, easier to troubleshoot, whereas PC's can have any odd variety of components and requires extra testing) and since it was coming out later they added on another part to the PC version to salve the PC gamers who were stuck waiting after the XBOX release.

KotOR was the first step away from PC's for BioWare.  Jade Empire was a huge leap (no PC version for years and they swore they had no plans for one) and Mass Effect was also continuing a big step away (they swore no PC version for that, either, then released one like 6 months later!)

But KotOR was always a PC and XBOX game from all but the earliest stages of development.  If anything, it was a PC game first as they always intended PC but they didn't initially know which console or consoles they would also include.

Modifié par MerinTB, 25 août 2011 - 04:45 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

... I was talking about in general though.

KotOR didn't come out on the 360, after all.

[MerinTB]

mrcrusty wrote...

... I was talking about in general though.

KotOR didn't come out on the 360, after all.

I was quoting the whole conversation as it read as if it was assumed that KotOR was a port to the PC.  Which it absolutely was not.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Well, it did start off about KotOR and then Sylvius then expanded that to games in general and why consoles as the lead platform would help in development for multi platform games. I just mentioned that this was already the case.

You're right though, I do remember KotOR being co-developed in such a manner. Funnily enough, KotOR also marks the beginning of BioWare's push to make "cinematic narratives".

[MerinTB]

mrcrusty wrote...

Well, it did start off about KotOR and then Sylvius then expanded that to games in general and why consoles as the lead platform would help in development for multi platform games. I just mentioned that this was already the case.

You're right though, I do remember KotOR being co-developed in such a manner. Funnily enough, KotOR also marks the beginning of BioWare's push to make "cinematic narratives".

As much as I love KotOR, and I do love KotOR an awful lot, it was the start of many "bad trends" (IMO) for BioWare games.

[Morroian]

mrcrusty wrote...

Well, it did start off about KotOR and then Sylvius then expanded that to games in general and why consoles as the lead platform would help in development for multi platform games. I just mentioned that this was already the case.

You're right though, I do remember KotOR being co-developed in such a manner. Funnily enough, KotOR also marks the beginning of BioWare's push to make "cinematic narratives".

Doesn't just apply to BW or cinematic games though, Skyrim is the same, Risen 2, coming out early next year is the same, both more traditional rpgs than DA2. 

Modifié par Morroian, 25 août 2011 - 05:41 .

[HTTP 404]

so?

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Morroian wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

Well, it did start off about KotOR and then Sylvius then expanded that to games in general and why consoles as the lead platform would help in development for multi platform games. I just mentioned that this was already the case.

You're right though, I do remember KotOR being co-developed in such a manner. Funnily enough, KotOR also marks the beginning of BioWare's push to make "cinematic narratives".

Doesn't just apply to BW or cinematic games though, Skyrim is the same, Risen 2, coming out early next year is the same, both more traditional rpgs than DA2. 

Lol. That reactionary, huh?

Yes, it's done like that for other games too, BioWare is hardly alone here. Hence why I said most games in the beginning.

This is not a "BiowEAre ignores master PC gaming race!!!1111!!!1!!oneoneone" type rant, the entire industry prefers to use the 360 as it's lead platform, then upscale to PCs afterwards for the sake of convenience and ease of development since all 360s are the same in hardware unlike PCs. Also helps that the 360 is where most of the money is, too.

I think though, that BattleField 3 (funnily enough, an EA game) is focused on PC first, consoles second in development. We'll see how that turns out later.

But as that's not really relevant to the topic, I'll try and bring it back. No, I don't think RPGs are irrelevant at all, neither as a concept, nor as it's own genre.

It's just that RPGs have always been a niche on the cusp of being mainstream. What's changed isn't the perception of RPGs, or it's relevance, it's how developers and publishers look at the genre in terms of market size. RPGs are not mainstream games and even commercial success stories in the genre only sell ~2-3 million copies (BG/BG2) with the exception being Bethesda's open world sandbox games. Even the better A or AA RPGs only sell around 500k-1mil copies. They aren't a AAA blockbuster genre.

So, if you want to grow the audience to the point where you're selling 5-6 million copies while actively taking steps to ensure that the niche and hardcore elements are less prominent to attract such a crowd, you can't then say that the genre has become less relevant as a whole, it's just less relevant to you.

That's like slowly adding Coca Cola to your Pepsi bottles because you think it'll get more customers then eventually proclaiming that Pepsi is no longer relevant to today's beverage market.

It's still relevant, just not to your drinks anymore since you are slowly phasing it out.

If developers and publishers wanted to start with more grounded projects and targets (10 mil budget, 2 1/2 years, 500k sales or something), then you'd see a lot more traditional RPGs in the market. There is actually quite a healthy handheld market for JRPGs which basically work under this model. Modest investments, modest returns.

Unfortunately, while there are developers who'd be happy to do that here in North America (Obsidian), no publisher wants that, preferring the higher risk & reward scenarios of shorter dev times, higher budgets and mandates for things like visuals, cinematics, advertising as well as a high mark for profit. Obviously, the developer is gonna try and pull in more people but making it appeal less to it's niche fundamentals and make it more Action-y instead to try and meet the publisher's demands. After all, they've gotta eat and feed their families, too. It's a shame, but such is business.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 25 août 2011 - 06:34 .

[Sakatox]

Oh good, at least some folks in here have a shrewd sense of logic and business.
Thank you mrcrusty, couldn't have said better.

[AmstradHero]

Morroian wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...
I have absolutely zero problems with {not carrying decisions from BG1 to BG2}, because players were never led to believe that their choices would carry over from one game to the next.

Yeah but you could argue thats only because there's so much more communicaiton and niteraction between developers and players now.

The amount of communication is irrelevant. BG2 said you could "import your character". That's it. It never implied you would carry decisions over. Heck, it implied that you finished game with a specific group of companions - Imoen, Jaheira, Khalid, Minsc and Dynaheir within the first few minutes of gameplay. There was a clear message established to players from the get-go that "your character is carried across, but the story they experienced in BG1 is what we define it be".

DA2 suggests that your DAO choices matter in a significant fashion during the character creation process. They don't. That's poor expectation management, and effectively mistreating your customers. That's why I disapprove.

mrcrusty wrote...
If developers and publishers wanted to start with more grounded projects and targets (10 mil budget, 2 1/2 years, 500k sales or something), then you'd see a lot more traditional RPGs in the market. There is actually quite a healthy handheld market for JRPGs which basically work under this model. Modest investments, modest returns.

Unfortunately, while there are developers who'd be happy to do that here in North America (Obsidian), no publisher wants that, preferring the higher risk & reward scenarios of shorter dev times, higher budgets and mandates for things like visuals, cinematics, advertising as well as a high mark for profit. Obviously, the developer is gonna try and pull in more people but making it appeal less to it's niche fundamentals and make it more Action-y instead to try and meet the publisher's demands. After all, they've gotta eat and feed their families, too. It's a shame, but such is business.

Personally, using the ME series as a benchmark, I don't consider a shorter dev time and the increased cinematics and "non-traditional" style of gameplay as "high risk".  CoD games are turned out every year by two dev teams operating on separate two year cycles, but they're as safe as houses because people lap them up even when a title is mediocre. I'd suggest BioWare has been tending towards "safe" development options for a little while now, but provided they still deliver good games, I don't care.

As I've said before, I'd love to see smaller developers work on a "risky" "classic RPG" with less cinematic presentation and without full voice acting. I'd help work on one. But as you've said, that's not a AAA title.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 25 août 2011 - 07:49 .

[Xewaka]

Saintthanksgiving wrote...
A real friend stabs you in the front.
Bioware is laying it out there, so there is no confusion this time around.
The RPG is dead.

People said the same about graphic adventures. Now ask Telltale Games and Pendulo Studios about the health of said genre.

[Firky]

AmstradHero wrote...
As I've said before, I'd love to see smaller developers work on a "risky" "classic RPG" with less cinematic presentation and without full voice acting. I'd help work on one. But as you've said, that's not a AAA title.

Hey, Amstrad. How's tricks? Have you played Spiderweb games? http://www.spidweb.com/

*cries* Still getting to Avadon.

I often hear people talking about how you shouldn't change stuff that works, etc, but would "today's gamer" whoever he or she is, really want (a literal) Baldur's Gate all over again, especially in competition with other "AAA" games. (I would, but I honestly don't know if it could ever go beyond it's niche.)

[Darth Krytie]

Sakatox wrote...

Oh good, at least some folks in here have a shrewd sense of logic and business.
Thank you mrcrusty, couldn't have said better.

I agree. It's a pain coming here, and reading ridiculous posts by people who do not actively consider what it is to be in the gaming business. (or what devs can and cannot say in PR releases)

[dragon_83]

Xewaka wrote...

Saintthanksgiving wrote...
A real friend stabs you in the front.
Bioware is laying it out there, so there is no confusion this time around.
The RPG is dead.

People said the same about graphic adventures. Now ask Telltale Games and Pendulo Studios about the health of said genre.

For a few years, adventure games were dead. There were very few good adventure games in the mid 2000s. Since the late 2000s, we started to get more and more adventure game, but mostly they are not as good as the classics. Maybe the RPG genre will follow the same trend.

[Yrkoon]

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.

Good point,   But in the grand scheme of things,  this has very little to do with the overall  discussion.   Fans don't buy games because they're profitable.  They buy games because they're *good*.  DA:O's sales prove that if a company puts out  a really good old-school style RPG, Millions and millions will buy it.  And this fact, alone,  shows how *silly* the good Dr.'s comments about RPG irrelevancy really are.  DA:O isn't even 2 years old yet.


  But since DA:O was probably less profitable due to its production costs and  production time, Maybe  Zeschuk  should  actually say  what he really wants to say here but can't, publically:  RPGs are becoming  increasingly irrelevant For Bioware and its fast-track schedule.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 25 août 2011 - 10:43 .

[Yrkoon]

mrcrusty wrote...

That's like slowly adding Coca Cola to your Pepsi bottles because you think it'll get more customers then eventually proclaiming that Pepsi is no longer relevant to today's beverage market.

It's still relevant, just not to your drinks anymore since you are slowly phasing it out.

This is a fantastic Analogy.  Why didn't I think of it?

[mopotter]

I want specific things in any game I play.
1) customization of my character - Male/Female a must, and to some extent how they look but that's secondary.
2) an interesting story
3) more than one ending so I am interested in replaying it for a long time.
4) game play that can go from casual to hard core and that can be saved easily.
5) choices so that if I want to be rude or "evil" I can and if I want to be polite or "good" I can.
6) with BioWare I'd like a romance option, in the style of DA:O or earlier games. With other games, friendships or refusals to join my team which FA:NV did pretty well.
Other things that make a game better or worse to me but these are the most important, to me.

I don't play shooters, don't like them but ME series is fun and I've enjoyed both games. I don't play MMO's have tried them and don't care for them, but if TOR can be played single player, which I've heard you can, I may try it, still not sure.

So far, BioWare is still giving me games I've enjoyed and I re-play.(Including DA:2). None are perfect because I don't think there will ever be a perfect game unless you can make it yourself and I am quite aware I'll never do that. If they completely discontinue games like DA and ME I'll stop buying their games.

Personally I think they are large enough to do both the old style DA:O and the new style ME games and maybe even branch out to something I will never play. That will make me unhappy because it means less games that I like, but I'll just go back to playing their old games and look at other options. Maybe learn to make my own game. Probably not.

edit spell

Modifié par mopotter, 25 août 2011 - 11:36 .