452 réponses à ce sujet

[Anomaly-]

Zanallen wrote...

Imrahil_ wrote...
Not really.  It's been well documented that at least one of the main
contributors to DA:O left when told what DA2 was going to be.  One Lead
Designer created a game that exceeded expectations, brought in gamers
who didn't normally play RPG's, won awards, & was praised by critics
& fans alike.  He left. The new Lead Designer oversaw a game that
cut their audience in half, damaged Biowares rep, & made them a
punchline.  Oh, and is somehow in charge of DAIII,

So, your position is that Brent Knowles is the god of Dragon Age and that all that is great came from his loins? Despite the fact that he was one of three Lead Designers who worked on the project and that LD is far from the sole contributor to a project.

We're all aware that a development team consists of more than 1 person. However, pretty much every criticism of DA2 can be traced back to design decisions, or limited development cycle. No one was blaming random programmers or artists, because the issues weren't that these aspects were buggy or glitchy, the issues were with the direction they took. Obviously, these were design decisions that came from higher up. Besides, when one guy actually leaves because he feels so opposed to the new design direction, that's pretty telling.

As for the dev cycle, blaming EA seems to be par for the course.

Modifié par Anomaly-, 03 septembre 2011 - 06:16 .

[Zanallen]

Anomaly- wrote...

We're all aware that a development team consists of more than 1 person. However, pretty much every criticism of DA2 can be traced back to design decisions, or limited development cycle. No one was blaming random programmers or artists, because the issues weren't that these aspects were buggy or glitchy, the issues were with the direction they took. Obviously, these were design decisions that came from higher up. Besides, when one guy actually leaves because he feels so opposed to the new design direction, that's pretty telling.

As for the dev cycle, blaming EA seems to be par for the course.

Except the guy that I was quoting wants Bioware to fire the team who made DA2 or at least take the production of DA3 away from them. The same team that consists of the vast majority of people who made Origins.

And Brent Knowles didn't quit Bioware because of DA2. He decided he didn't want to be lead on DA2, realized that there were no other projects that he could be lead on since bioware wasn't going to bump the lead position from TOR or ME for him and then left to work on his writing.

[Imrahil_]

Zanallen wrote...
I have read them. And I mostly agree with what the developers have been saying. Some people wanted more Origins.

Yeah. To be fair, that would've probably 1) pleased the fans, 2) not made them a laughinstock, & 3) sold better, but who cares about any of that, right?

The polls that you mention below are proof of that. People who prefer a silent protagonist and people who prefer a more DA:O style approach to companion customization obviously want more Origins. How is it "blaming the fans" when they are telling the truth? Some people wanted more Origins. That is a fact.

I'm with you.  Why blame the fans for ****ing about what they wanted when you gave them something they didn't want & they didn't buy your game because of it?  And now the polls say, after you've pissed off half your fans, that either way you go is going to ****** off half your remaining fans.  I mean, you're right.  What's bad about that approach?

No it isn't. I'm willing to bet that, despite sales,

It's rude, & I acknoweldge it, & I apologize, but I'm gonna stop you right there.  "despite sales"?  Seriously, "despite sales"?  How can you despite sales?  They literally sold less than half the original game!  How can you "despite sales" anything?  I mean, maybe if they won some awards or something, you could be like "despite sale", but they didn't,  The original game won awards.  If they could fall back on "hey, despite sales, we won awards, so that's something", then yeah, you could pull, "despite sales", but they didn't.  They not only lost sales, they lost awards!  It's objectively worse.  Plain & simple.  "despite sales"?

So, your position is that Brent Knowles is the god of Dragon Age and that all that is great came from his loins? Despite the fact that he was one of three Lead Designers who worked on the project and that LD is far from the sole contributor to a project.

Did I say that?  I forgot - is that what I said?  I must have a terrible short-term memory, so if that's what I said, please quote me saying it.  On the other hand, if you can't quote me saying that, then that must not be what I meant, right?

Modifié par Imrahil_, 03 septembre 2011 - 06:25 .

[Imrahil_]

Zanallen wrote...
Except the guy that I was quoting wants Bioware to fire the team who made DA2 or at least take the production of DA3 away from them. The same team that consists of the vast majority of people who made Origins.

Wait, I'm pretty sure I'm the guy you were quoting & I never said that.  Care to try again?  My mouth is getting full of the words you're putting in it.

Modifié par Imrahil_, 03 septembre 2011 - 06:28 .

[Zanallen]

Total sales is not the end all metric for success. That would be net profit. A game could sell 10 million copies, but if it cost 600 million to make, you get 0 profit and you don't make a game like that again. Going off what Gaider has said, DA:O cost 5 times as much as DA2. Therefore, it would have to sell 5x as much to have an equal profit.

But nevermind. You hated DA2. I get it. I'm not going to argue with you. It is a pointless endeavor. Just try and keep in mind that your opinions are not facts.

[Zanallen]

Imrahil_ wrote...

Wait, I'm pretty sure I'm the guy you were quoting & I never said that.  Care to try again?  My mouth is getting full of the words you're putting in it.

Lol. You said this: "and they've apparently kept the same designers for DA III.  Can you
imagine?  What real company would do this?  "Sure, you lost us 2.5
million customers & damaged our brand name but, hey, here, go for it
on DA III - you derserve it!"  What competent company would turn over
the third installment to the same people that lost them half their
audience & took them from "the best RPG company bar none" to
a laughingstock across the internet?"

Seems to me, you are saying that Bioware shouldn't be having the DA2 team working on DA3. But really, this is an effort in futility and I am no longer going to bother with it. Have fun hating DA2.

[hoorayforicecream]

Zanallen wrote...

Total sales is not the end all metric for success. That would be net profit. A game could sell 10 million copies, but if it cost 600 million to make, you get 0 profit and you don't make a game like that again. Going off what Gaider has said, DA:O cost 5 times as much as DA2. Therefore, it would have to sell 5x as much to have an equal profit.

I'm not sure that he said DAO cost 5x as much. I am pretty sure he was speaking hypothetically when he said that, and not giving actual numbers. That said, I do know that they sold around 4 million copies of Tomb Raider: Underworld (more than DAO) and it only broke even. I also know that Angry Birds has like 300 million downloads, but their total gross revenue is still less than the profit that Black Ops pulled in with their 25 million sales. So you're quite right; looking at sales figures alone is like trying to figure out the square footage of a room using only its length.

[TheBlackBaron]

I would imagine that DA2, despite the lower sales, has a better profit margin than DA:O, if only because of the difference in costs between rushing it out in 18 months as opposed to 5 years, which is an eternity in development terms.

[Imrahil_]

Imrahil_ wrote...
Wait, I'm pretty sure I'm the guy you were quoting & I never said that. Care to try again? My mouth is getting full of the words you're putting in it.

Zanallen wrote...
Seems to me, you are saying...

Good. As long as we agree that I never actually said the words you're putting in my mouth.  Feel free to keep imagining what you think I said, though.  If you want to address what I actually said, I'm open to it.

Modifié par Imrahil_, 03 septembre 2011 - 07:01 .

[csfteeeer]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

I would imagine that DA2, despite the lower sales, has a better profit margin than DA:O, if only because of the difference in costs between rushing it out in 18 months as opposed to 5 years, which is an eternity in development terms.

I Read somewhere that it was actually Development Hell(don't quote me on this), which basically means, they are stock.
So.... my guess would be that it didn't actually took 5 years and instead it 3 or maybe 4, which is a rather average development time for High Profile RPGs.

[TEWR]

Financially, DAII did well I imagine because of the shorter dev time. But in terms of the game itself, it was horrendous, and Bioware will not be able to pull off a financial success like that again.

So, they can't rush DAIII. If they do, it won't do as well because part of what made DAII a financial success was the amount of pre-orders.

[Imrahil_]

Filament wrote...

You were bemoaning that they kept the same team from DA2 to work on DA3, obviously that was your implication. Don't blame him that you're so sloppy at reining in your vitriol that you would let giant "unintended" implications like that slip by.

Like I told him, if that's what I said, you should be able to quote me saying it.  Go for it.

[Anomaly-]

Zanallen wrote...
And Brent Knowles didn't quit Bioware because of DA2. He decided he didn't want to be lead on DA2, realized that there were no other projects that he could be lead on since bioware wasn't going to bump the lead position from TOR or ME for him and then left to work on his writing.

That's odd, since it seems to be the general consensus around here. If that isn't the case, I was misinformed. Everything else I said still stands, though.

Zanallen wrote...
Going off what Gaider has said, DA:O cost 5 times as much as DA2.

And it shows. Honestly, even though that figure is likely inaccurate, and even though you may be right about the net gain, the very fact that so much more money and effort went into Origins is the point that I continue to make. It was undeniably the superior product, and it shows. That's all I was every really trying to illustrate. Why people argue that, then claim to be annoyed when presented with the same facts baffles me a bit. Given that fact, and your argument for net gain, it's not hard to see why people accuse Bioware of making a 'quick buck' with DA2.

Zanallen wrote...
Lol. You said this: "and they've apparently kept the same designers for DA III.  Can you imagine?  What real company would do this?  "Sure, you lost us 2.5 million customers & damaged our brand name but, hey, here, go for it on DA III - you derserve it!"  What competent company would turn over the third installment to the same people that lost them half their audience & took them from "the best RPG company bar none" to a laughingstock across the internet?"

Seems to me, you are saying that Bioware shouldn't be having the DA2 team working on DA3. But really, this is an effort in futility and I am no longer going to bother with it. Have fun hating DA2.

It's pretty clear from that quote that he's talking about the designers, not the entire team. Even ignoring his quote, that would make the most sense, since his whole point was about the mysterious design changes after the success of Origins.

TheBlackBaron wrote...

I would imagine that DA2, despite the lower sales, has a better profit margin than DA:O, if only because of the difference in costs between rushing it out in 18 months as opposed to 5 years, which is an eternity in development terms.

Actually, now that I recall, wasn't most of that development time for Origins spent laying down the groundwork for the engine? In that case, had they not chosen to mysteriously overhaul the same design that earned them so much success from Origins, they could have put out a superior product in even less time than they did. Less time and costs, more profit, a superior product, and a fan base that wouldn't have been split down the middle, ensuring that half of them are almost certain to be pissed off about DA3. I think this is the original point Imrahil was trying to make. Why didn't they do that?

Modifié par Anomaly-, 03 septembre 2011 - 07:23 .

[Esbatty]

I trust them to make Dragon Age 3. I'm in the series for the stories they tell, not micromanaging the encumbrance of my companions Bags o' Holding tyvm.

[John Epler]

I'm going to remind everyone that suggesting, whether directly or indirectly, that certain people or groups of people should be fired is not something we consider acceptable on these forums. Keep it off that tangent and this thread will remain happily unlocked.

Thank you.

[hoorayforicecream]

Anomaly- wrote...
And it shows. Honestly, even though that figure is likely inaccurate, and even though you may be right about the net gain, the very fact that so much more money and effort went into Origins is the point that I continue to make. It was undeniably the superior product, and it shows. That's all I was every really trying to illustrate. Why people argue that, then claim to be annoyed when presented with the same facts baffles me a bit. Given that fact, and your argument for net gain, it's not hard to see why people accuse Bioware of making a 'quick buck' with
DA2.

There's a pretty big difference in what people want though. When I see DA2, I see the effects of a shortened dev cycle. But I also see that they did take a lot of things to heart from DAO, listened to feedback, and attempted to improve on things. Whether they were successful is up to interpretation. I think that they were successful in some regards (friendship/rivalry, talent trees and upgrades, combat pacing), and were unsuccessful in others (companion customization, badly hidden wave spawning, encounter design). Origins was a superior product, I will agree. But I think that Origins was a superior product because they had sufficient time to polish it, and not because it made better design decisions than DA2.

But part of that is what the feedback asks for. The very topic of this thread is already loaded - asking if anyone trusts Bioware to create DA3 is starting the entire thread in a negative light. There's a lot of opinion injected already, and it's pretty clear that the sort of discussion here won't really be constructive. Saying that the game was god-awful is not constructive. Expressing disbelief that the DA2 designers could continue to be trusted with the IP is not constructive. The best we can hope for in this thread is a war of opinions, and that's not constructive.

We can argue until we're blue in the face, but in all honesty, Bioware's going to continue making the games they want to make until they run out of funding. You can offer your opinion on it, but let's be clear here - unless you're talking about "What I liked about this game" and "What I didn't like about this game" in specific, they probably aren't going to listen too carefully.

[TheBlackBaron]

Anomaly- wrote...

Actually, now that I recall, wasn't most of that development time for Origins spent laying down the groundwork for the engine? In that case, had they not chosen to mysteriously overhaul the same design that earned them so much success from Origins, they could have put out a superior product in even less time than they did. Less time and costs, more profit, a superior product, and a fan base that wouldn't have been split down the middle, ensuring that half of them are almost certain to be pissed off about DA3. I think this is the original point Imrahil was trying to make. Why didn't they do that?

The engine overhaul - especially since it basically ended up looking even worse than DA:O did in a lot of ways - is the one part of this that has always puzzled me. Knowing that they weren't going to have a lot of time to work on this thing, why did they choose to direct so much effort towards that instead of polishing the other design elements that were dramatic changes from Origins? Some of the usual complaints like the voiced protaganist and dialog wheel wouldn't have been changed by that, but other ones like the wave combat and the repetitive enviroments would have benefitted hugely even with that same 18 months development time. 

[Anomaly-]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
There's a pretty big difference in what people want though. When I see DA2, I see the effects of a shortened dev cycle. But I also see that they did take a lot of things to heart from DAO, listened to feedback, and attempted to improve on things.

I can see where they tried to improve some things, yes. For example, the combat pacing. Granted, they took it too far, but I can at least see what they were trying to address there. The drastic changes in art design, customization, dialogue style and meaningful choices came out of left field. I can't remember many complaints about these things when Origins came out, nor can I remember the pleas for help of people terrified by the inaccessibility of Origins, as many interviews suggest. Actually, I recently browsed over an old thread of suggestions for DA:O. Know what two of the biggest suggestions were? More (meaningful) choices, and better itemization. Two things that actually took a significant step backward in DA2.

Whether they were successful is up to interpretation. I think that they were successful in some regards (friendship/rivalry, talent trees and upgrades, combat pacing), and were unsuccessful in others (companion customization, badly hidden wave spawning, encounter design).

This is a little subjectice, as I would disagree that they were successful with talent trees and upgrades, and combat pacing. Entirely agree with your unsuccessful examples.

Origins was a superior product, I will agree. But I think that Origins was a superior product because they had sufficient time to polish it, and not because it made better design decisions than DA2.

I think both played a part, and I think it's pretty hard to distinguish where one ends and the other begins. For example, one might argue that the design changes might have been much better if they'd had more time to polish things. On the other hand, someone might wonder why they would decide to undertake such drastic changes if they had so little time to do so (not to mention the fact that what they had was very successful).

But part of that is what the feedback asks for. The very topic of this thread is already loaded - asking if anyone trusts Bioware to create DA3 is starting the entire thread in a negative light. There's a lot of opinion injected already, and it's pretty clear that the sort of discussion here won't really be constructive. Saying that the game was god-awful is not constructive. Expressing disbelief that the DA2 designers could continue to be trusted with the IP is not constructive. The best we can hope for in this thread is a war of opinions, and that's not constructive.

Yes, but I think if you look past that, all this thread really hopes to accomplish is to get an idea of how divided the community is in regards to future installments. That, at least, is marginally interesting and useful.

We can argue until we're blue in the face, but in all honesty, Bioware's going to continue making the games they want to make until they run out of funding. You can offer your opinion on it, but let's be clear here - unless you're talking about "What I liked about this game" and "What I didn't like about this game" in specific, they probably aren't going to listen too carefully.

I wrote my own review of the game shortly after it came out, with about as much detail as I could manage. I've linked it in my signature, and in the constructive criticism and da2 review threads. There's not much else I can do on that front. The only reasons I got involved in this thread were because 1) I get annoyed when I see people cover their eyes and plug their ears to the flaws of DA2, and get annoyed when people repeat the same factual information to them, and 2) because I was annoyed that someone else continued to be misquoted.

Modifié par Anomaly-, 03 septembre 2011 - 08:09 .

[LukaCrosszeria]

Saberchic wrote...

When did they actually announce DA3?

Also, just because they didn't do as well as DAO, it doesn't mean I'm ready to turn my back on Bioware. I'm not that fickle.

I'm sure they will take the improvements from DA2 and go back to some of the elements that worked with Origins.

Exactly, despite its flaws, I found DA2 a highly enjoyable, addictive game, plus felt totally spoiled by a voiced protagonist. I could listen to male sarcastic Hawke go on all day. Bioware writing? Funny as hell!

DA2 has a huge replay value to me and I jumped on Legacy the second it came out. It was an amazing dlc, so yes, I trust BioWare to make a third good Dragon Age game.

I mean, when you try your hand at something new, as they did, it's bound to be tricky, it's always a risk. I've analysed and critcised DA2 in a few posts, but it was never an attack on BioWare or suggesting I didn't trust them anymore to make good games. I was disappointed that such a good game could have been even more awesome. If I didn't care, I wouldn't bother to comment. But over the course of months people kept hammering on about it. Enough already, I say.

Modifié par LukaCrosszeria, 03 septembre 2011 - 08:01 .

[Davasar]

Zanallen wrote...

Imrahil_ wrote...

It's not that unreasonable, really.  The reasoning goes like this: They put out a god-awful terrible game.  But, instead of recognizing that they put out a god-awful terrible game, they blamed their fans for not liking the god-awful terrible game.

See, they not only didn't accept that they put out a god-awful terrible game, that sold half as much as their prior game, they had the nerve to blame their fans for not liking their god-awful terrible game.  The same fans that had supported them for the last 15 years.  They actually blamed their fans for "not accepting change".  They blamed the fans!  Can you imagine?

So, it's not just that finally put out a clunker, it's that...
 
1) they don't acknowledge they put out a clunker - they think they put out an awesome game & DA3 should be 85% DA2 & 15% DA:O.  Read the posts about DA2 & the interviews.  They still, to this day, think they actually created a good game in DA2.  They're actually proud of it!

2) and they've apparently kept the same designers for DA III.  Can you imagine?  What real company would do this?  "Sure, you lost us 2.5 million customers & damaged our brand name but, hey, here, go for it on DA III - you derserve it!"  What competent company would turn over the third installment to the same people that lost them half their audience & took them from "the best RPG company bar none" to a laughingstock across the internet?

They still insist on creating the third game with stuff from the second game, & have flat out told us that their keeping the second game stuff with at best a few  bare-bones thrown to fans of the first game.

After providing me with hundreds of hours of incredible entertainment over the last 15 years, Bioware finally turned stupid. Or turned EA.  Same difference, I suppose.

1. Bioware has not been blaming their fans. That is the product of hate-filled vitriol and irate "fans" twisting their words.

2. DA2 is not an objectively bad game. There are plenty of people who enjoyed the game. How can they say they released a "god-awful terrible game" when that isn't the objective truth or even the general consensus?

3. Remember that DA2 was made by the same people who made DA:O.

1- Bioware DID blame the fans.  When the fans complained about inferior game design (Parachuting/teleporting  enemy waves, Copy/paste maps, lack of choice for race, loss of class features and skills.....all these things are MEASURABLY less and inferior then the previous product). 

The fans that helped Bioware get where they are were threw out the door and given the
finger with a "Never come back!" screamed at them as their butts hit the
pavement.

Bioware said the fans couldn't accept 'change'.
We're fine with change Bioware, we do not accept inferiority framed in a game with less content, quality and replayability with the game creators telling us it's the best thing since sliced bread.  Changes are fine, as long as they are SUPERIOR or at least EQUAL quality changes.  See above for the inferior examples and therefore, your failure.

Be mad at us for calling you on your lie, that's fine. 

But it was still a lie.  Get mad all you want, it won't change that fact.


2- God awful game?  Yes.  See the measurable parts of why it is inferior to DAO.


3- Same people?  Excuse me?  Some core people left that were obviously the custodians of quality and consumer good will.  These poeple obviously were integral to making a high quality game and without them, the quality measurably suffered.


Bioware doesn't want the fans they've had for all these years.  They said so.

They want new fans and have said this as well.  They make the game simpler because the newer fans can't handle the complexity, yet they get mad when these fans are critisized for liking (and needing) a dumbed down version of the game.

Hypocrisy much?  Making the game simpler then getting mad when someone notices the dumbing down of the game? 

With the way they have made DA2, I am incliced to firmly believe their stance on their previous (no longer) and current fans.  Good job Bioware, you got what you wanted.  The old fans leave and you get less sales.

Good job.

[dsl08002]

i feel that bioware will create a DA3 but after the disapointment with DA2 because of its repeating places, thin story line, Absoloutley terrible as a sequal to DAO then all expextations are very low for DA3.

because its not good as DAO and that several DAO fans including some DA2 fans wants to return to some features in DAO bioware is going to ****** of some fans no matter what.

Some fans like me wanted the Warden to return in DA3 as a protaganist, some wanted hawke to return and some want a new protaganist, so in a way bioware has a very long way to prove themself that they can appeal their fans.

[Imrahil_]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
I think that they were successful in some regards (friendship/rivalry, talent trees and upgrades, combat pacing), and were unsuccessful in others (companion customization, badly hidden wave spawning, encounter design).

I'd say the things you mentioned as successful were improvements.  Absolutely (although they went too far in combat pacing, IMO).  If they'd done that, & literally nothing else, I'd bet they'd have created a successful game.  And they would have had time to create new areas & encounters instead of recycling them. 

Other things could stand to be improved on from DA:O, certainly, but if they'd created a great story with great companions & only made those slight tweaks, they'd probaby have a very successful sequel on their hands.

The problem is all the other stuff they changed (customization, removed class abilities, removed specializations, removed non-combat skills, bad loot system, less codexes, ignored lore, graphics changes, re-used areas, ninjas, voiced, wheel, bad paraphrases, poorly designed encounters, lack of choice, time skips where nothing changes, etc.).  They changed too much, too much to the detriment, & too much that wasn't broken. 

Saying that the game was god-awful is not constructive. Expressing disbelief that the DA2 designers could continue to be trusted with the IP is not constructive.

I think it is.  It's a way for me to tell them that I will not be buying DA3 if they continue on the curent path.  If I say "DA2 was below optimal, not quite to my tastes, no offense", then maybe they think that adding back 25% of DA:O will get me back.  It won't.  OTOH, if I say DA2 was god-awful, then I'm saying I will not be back if they continue on the current path.  75% DA2 + 25% DA:O will not get my money, because I'm not willing to pay for 75% of god-awful, whereas if I say DA2 was just "not to my tastes", they might think they can get me back by throwing me a few DA:O bones.  But they won't.

Bioware's going to continue making the games they want to make until they run out of funding.

That's the problem, plain & simple.  If they keep making the games they want to make, they will keep losing sales, like they did with DA2.  I don't post on here often, more like in spurts, but all I can do is say they lost me as a customer with DA2, & if DA3 is in the same vein as DA2, they won't get me back.  They need to make the games their existing customers want, not what they think their customers should want.

Modifié par Imrahil_, 03 septembre 2011 - 08:14 .

[Davasar]

Imrahil.

The problem is:

They don't want us as customers anymore.

They want the CoD crowd. They said it. That's it.

They will NOT be making games for fans like us anymore.

It was a fun ride, but it's over.

Sorry bro.