299 réponses à ce sujet

[Ramus Quaritch]

According to this interview.

So...  Dragon Age 2 being rushed?...

[Cutlass Jack]

That would be when, not what.

[addiction21]

Now go to the comment section of that interview and prepare for a repeat...

[TheJediSaint]

Careful, few things start flamewars more than challenging the idea of EA's evilness.

[Yuqi]

One,Two,Three,Four,  I smell a FLAME WAR.

<_<

[dheer]

EA doesn't tell them what to do because they are EA.

[Zippy72]

The release schedules for games would appear to be dictated by the EA financial year. Both ME3 and DA2 coming in early March just before fiscal ‘year end’.

There has been a lot of developer comment on ‘limited resources’ for DA2 during interviews, which suggests business decisions were the priority over creative or quality based decisions. Maybe it needs to be that way though? Not every developer can have Valve time.

[Feanor_II]

I don't believe that things are so beatiful, the devs can't tell us yet if Origin will be required to play ME3 and I'm pretty sure that that decision is going to come from Bioware itself.

[TEWR]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

That would be when, not what.

Technically it would be both, wouldn't it? By telling them when to release a game, they are effectively telling them what to do.

[Dariuszp]

Who cares ? DA II is a crap. End of story. Wait for next one and take your lesson.

My lesson is that I should never pre-order anything. Game is not a rabbit. It will not run away.

[Cutlass Jack]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Technically it would be both, wouldn't it? By telling them when to release a game, they are effectively telling them what to do.

Not really. Speaking from personal experience, Assigning a deadline is not the same as telling someone what to create in that timeframe. Or how to use their time.

For example, EA could say "We'd really like to see a Dragon Age release in Q1 of next year." But its Bioware that decides what that next release is. Now from EAs point of view, they were probably thinking the engine is created, so more of the same is doable in that timeframe. And if it were just going to be another Awakening, they'd be correct.

But Bioware wants to give the players a fresher experience instead of more of the same. So they get overly ambitious when designing DA2. Because of that, they needed to cut corners to make deadlines. And because of that, some ideas that would have been great, given enough development time (like the 10 year timespan) instead fall flat.

[fightright2]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Cutlass Jack wrote...

That would be when, not what.

Technically it would be both, wouldn't it? By telling them when to release a game, they are effectively telling them what to do.

Since DA3's production time is relevant to DA2's 'rushed' production time/deadline.

My question is: "How long will EA give Bioware to make DA3?"
Certainly for me, if it's the same as DA2's... I more than likely will be skeptical to buy, much less pre-order.

[Complistic]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Technically it would be both, wouldn't it? By telling them when to release a game, they are effectively telling them what to do.

Not really. Speaking from personal experience, Assigning a deadline is not the same as telling someone what to create in that timeframe. Or how to use their time.

For example, EA could say "We'd really like to see a Dragon Age release in Q1 of next year." But its Bioware that decides what that next release is. Now from EAs point of view, they were probably thinking the engine is created, so more of the same is doable in that timeframe. And if it were just going to be another Awakening, they'd be correct.

But Bioware wants to give the players a fresher experience instead of more of the same. So they get overly ambitious when designing DA2. Because of that, they needed to cut corners to make deadlines. And because of that, some ideas that would have been great, given enough development time (like the 10 year timespan) instead fall flat.

No, it is. If they say how much time they're allowing them to work on the game, they're telling them that they're going to have to cut stuff and take shortcuts if the time allowed was so short like DA2.

But I personally feel that was Bioware's own doing and EA didn't have anything to do with it.

[billy the squid]

Well if Bioware is a subsidiary of EA, after the acquisition, the way things usually end up, although there is no hard and fast rule, is that the parent company controls most of the financial and economic decisions on a large scale as well as its obvious contacts with distribution chains and the legal side of things.

Although it depends how extensive Bioware's links to distribution and legal departments etc were to begin with so EA may be quite happy to let them continue to function in such a way with minimal interference and only a certain amount of oversight. It is part of the reason they acquired the company.

As to game development I don't think EA gives anything more than broad strokes in what they would expect, ie: make it more accessible, time scale for development or even just expand audience. How that is actually achieved I would think remains up to Bioware, obviously with aditional resources EA has due to economies of scale.

Modifié par billy the squid, 04 octobre 2011 - 01:12 .

[ElitePinecone]

Zippy72 wrote...

There has been a lot of developer comment on ‘limited resources’ for DA2 during interviews, which suggests business decisions were the priority over creative or quality based decisions. Maybe it needs to be that way though? Not every developer can have Valve time.

I think this is true - Origins' level of five+ years is almost certainly too much  - but isn't one responsibility of limited budgets and limited development time an acknowlegement of its limits? Or a scaling back of your internal plans (not to mention marketing) when it's obvious the end result can't meet the ambition? 

If the focus was on quality rather than release date, I'd much rather Bioware had focused on making a smaller, brilliant game in the time it had (or ideally pushing the release date back) - but to promise excellence in marketing, with no mention of budget constraints, then to release DA2 and be surprised at the result? 

It's easy to concede in retrospect that it might've been better to cut content rather than recycle areas twenty times, but if nobody brought that up in development then something's seriously weird. More to the point, blaming limited resources is fine when your fans know there are limited resources - but the marketing gurus won't let someone talk down their own product, and so DA2 was promoted as the most amazing (visceral, awesome, cool, insert synonyms) game ever. Frankly, it wasn't, and it was made all the more disappointing (and baffling) by the knowledge that it'd been rushed to release. 

It's hardly surprising that the intersection of a limited budget/development time and ridiculously overinflated marketing was only ever going to be backlash. DA2 was a good game - frankly I'm amazed it's so good given the time constraints - but something clearly needs to change in the development process for its sequel. 

[Marionetten]

dheer wrote...

EA doesn't tell them what to do because they are EA.

That is exactly what Greg said in the interview, actually. 

"Not that we're bound to it, but we think a lot more about the commercial elements than we used to," Zeschuk explained. "Way, way back, years ago, we didn't even consider those, we just made stuff. And some of the stuff we made, in retrospect, was kind of crazy, like MDK2 - that's just crazy!"

This is another rather poignant point. Back in the day they designed primarily because of design and then they marketed that design as best they could. Now design is just another slave to marketability. This is an issue with the industry as a whole and I really wish that Greg and Ray wouldn't try so hard. BioWare titles sell because of their inherent quality. When that quality ends up compromised due to assembly line design that weakens the whole operation as Dragon Age II proved.

Modifié par Marionetten, 04 octobre 2011 - 01:39 .

[Adeph]

Marionetten wrote...

dheer wrote...

EA doesn't tell them what to do because they are EA.

That is exactly what Greg said in the interview, actually. 

"Not that we're bound to it, but we think a lot more about the commercial elements than we used to," Zeschuk explained. "Way, way back, years ago, we didn't even consider those, we just made stuff. And some of the stuff we made, in retrospect, was kind of crazy, like MDK2 - that's just crazy!"

This is another rather poignant point. Back in the day they designed primarily because of design and then they marketed that design as best they could. Now design is just another slave to marketability. This is an issue with the industry as a whole and I really wish that Greg and Ray wouldn't try so hard. BioWare titles sell because of their inherent quality. When that quality ends up compromised due to assembly line design that weakens the whole operation as Dragon Age II proved.

To be fair you have to take into consideration how the cost of game development has exploded since then, how much did BG2 cost to develop compared to a modern game like Mass Effect 2? It's much harder to be creative and experimental when $20-30 million are on the line should you fail. 

Modifié par Adeph, 04 octobre 2011 - 01:45 .

[lobi]

Adeph wrote...

Marionetten wrote...

dheer wrote...

EA doesn't tell them what to do because they are EA.

That is exactly what Greg said in the interview, actually. 

"Not that we're bound to it, but we think a lot more about the commercial elements than we used to," Zeschuk explained. "Way, way back, years ago, we didn't even consider those, we just made stuff. And some of the stuff we made, in retrospect, was kind of crazy, like MDK2 - that's just crazy!"

This is another rather poignant point. Back in the day they designed primarily because of design and then they marketed that design as best they could. Now design is just another slave to marketability. This is an issue with the industry as a whole and I really wish that Greg and Ray wouldn't try so hard. BioWare titles sell because of their inherent quality. When that quality ends up compromised due to assembly line design that weakens the whole operation as Dragon Age II proved.

To be fair you have to take into consideration how the cost of game development has exploded since then, how much did BG2 cost to develop compared to a modern game like Mass Effect 2? It's much harder to be creative and experimental when $20-30 million are on the line should you fail. 

Costs blow ot because of the exponential increase of staff that do not acually have anything to do with making the game. The old school entertainment industry has bought out gaming and applied it's overblown process of how things need to be done. These non essential personal demand big money for jobs that are essentially make work. Many of us saw this coming when Education Institutions replaced the word Movie with Game in their Course Curriculum. It is also why some game ip have taken the direction they have to bring them more in line with traditional forms of media at the cost of originallity and variation. Now the studios attempt to pump out games with the same frequency as old Hollywood produced C grade movies and creative variation by the player within the game world be Dam ned.

Modifié par lobi, 04 octobre 2011 - 02:27 .

[Yrkoon]

From the link:

 To say that EA now calls the shots "is not actually remotely true".

So... EA doesn't call the shots, Bioware does.  Got it.


But wait:

"One thing we commonly see is when fans don't like something we do, they put in the comments, 'Oh those EA guys, they're making BioWare do...' And I always chuckle because we are EA

Bioware IS EA.




Er... simple math.  If EA = Bioware, and Bioware = Calls the shots, then doesn't this mean that EA =  Calls the shots? 

Granted,    All this means is that they call the  shots for  themselves.  And That doesn't mean anything at all... well, except for the fact that the Fans he's "chuckling" at are actually RIGHT when they Blame EA for something Bioware does... since Bioware IS EA..

Modifié par Yrkoon, 04 octobre 2011 - 02:59 .

[Dubya75]

Ramus Quaritch wrote...

According to this interview.

So...  Dragon Age 2 being rushed?...

Yeah, I'm just wondering what you are hoping to achieve with this...still bitter about DA2? Isn't it time to move on already?
It is discussions like this that gave DA2 a bad name since day 1, even though in it's own right it is a pretty awesome game (says the guy who's currently on his 7th playthrough and still enjoying it as much as ever).

[Yrkoon]

I too think there's really nothing  of importance to glean from the article, but for discussion sake:

Dubya75 wrote...

 Isn't it time to move on already?

 I don't think so.  But perhaps you should  direct this question to Bioware?  Have they moved on?  Or are they still tirelessly  plugging DA2 with Item packs, DLCs, convention appearances etc....?

I say that if  the creators of the game are still actively  promoting the game  as if it's still current and relevant,  then  there's no reason why the rest of us  should have to pretend it's not and simply "move on", as you put it..

Modifié par Yrkoon, 04 octobre 2011 - 03:47 .

[Dragoonlordz]

The way it "feels" right now is Bioware used to make games for players and marketing came second place akin to an after thought. Now seems to me atleast that marketing is coming first and they make games for EA, players get second place.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 04 octobre 2011 - 03:56 .

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

The way it "feels" right now is Bioware used to make games for players and marketing came second place akin to an after thought. Now seems to me atleast that marketing is coming first and they make games for EA, players get second place.

It's like this: the people who want more of the same old thing come in second place.  Which is their rightful place... there just aren't that many of them anymore.  The reason it seems like BioWare has changed is that there are new opportunities to take advantage of and BioWare has finally clued in.  Why should they keep making games for the same group of people again and again and again?  They should bring great stories and fun gameplay to the largest audience possible.  If that means chopping off the boring parts, great!  All the better.  The games won't always be perfect, but they'll get better.


Search your feelings.  You know it's true.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Yrkoon wrote...

I say that if  the creators of the game are still actively  promoting the game  as if it's still current and relevant,  then  there's no reason why the rest of us  should have to pretend it's not and simply "move on", as you put it..

It still makes money, or they wouldn't be doing it.  :lol:

You point!  Invalid!  :P:P

[Yrkoon]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

The way it "feels" right now is Bioware used to make games for players and marketing came second place akin to an after thought. Now seems to me atleast that marketing is coming first and they make games for EA, players get second place.

It's like this: the people who want more of the same old thing come in second place. 

By "same old thing",   do you mean   DA2 as well?  After all, when DA3 comes out, DA2 will, in fact, "an old game"   or ' last generation'.

And we certainly don't want them to make the same game twice now, do we Mr. Berry?

Edit:  Sh*t.  Forgot the smilies.  here: 

Modifié par Yrkoon, 04 octobre 2011 - 04:28 .