299 réponses à ce sujet

[TEWR]

at least they admitted they focused too much on the commercial aspect.

[Marionetten]

TheJediSaint wrote...

DA2 was a fine game, and I'm still playing it now. The problem is that a lot of people on Bioware social are like comic book fans, they think any kind of change is bad and must be reverted.

You really think the opinion of Dragon Age II being awful is unique to a certain segment of BSN?

Come on now. If anything this is the only place where you will see any form of praise for that game.

[TheJediSaint]

Marionetten wrote...

You really think the opinion of Dragon Age II being awful is unique to a certain segment of BSN?

Come on now. If anything this is the only place where you will see any form of praise for that game.

I seem to find plenty here.

[Marionetten]

TheJediSaint wrote...

I seem to find plenty here.

Not quite as many here, however.

Or you could just read the comments to the linked article. If you believe that the popular opinion of Dragon Age II is positive you're living in a bubble.

[TheJediSaint]

But I'm in a bubble with free popcorn.

[Jarcander]

Filament wrote...

Noooobody tells BioWare what to do... nobody! Ha ha ha ha!

EA: "Quiet Bioware! Didn't I warn you what would happen if you kept laughing?" *writes down new, even stricter release schedule*
EA: "But let us be civilized, you, customer, you seem to be the one in charge. Tell us, customer, what did you come to expect from Dragon Age series?"
Customer: "Well now, since you aske..."
EA : *flings into rage, sics Bioware and a bunch of random guards at the customer and runs upstairs to play football manager*
Customer: "Right then, saved me a trip to the tower." *morrigan approves +5"

[Xewaka]

I found the real problem!

quoth the doctors...

"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."

Modifié par Xewaka, 04 octobre 2011 - 08:44 .

[Stanley Woo]

More off-topic conversation removed.

[Veex]

The Executioner wrote...

I'm concerned Bioware has alot on it's plate with there new KOTOR MMO and Mass Effect 3 and DA3. That's alot of to juggle hopefully DA3 won't suffer from the work load.

They operate as three separate studios as far as I'm aware so the only real impact you'd likely see is a shuffling of talent and not necessarily understaffing.

[Fireblader70]

EA might not tell them what to do, that would be ridiculously stupid considering Bioware's track record, but they can definitely push for a tighter release date.

Thus, we have Dragon Age 2. A game that was seriously intended to be the next big thing, but ended up being rushed and cut down instead. At least... that's how I see it now.

[tmp7704]

Xewaka wrote...

I found the real problem!

quoth the doctors...

"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."

To be fair, not paying that much attention to the commercial aspects had likely large part in BioWare eventually coming under EA label -- a company has to make money to stay afloat, and when you can't finance yourself well enough then you either need someone who can cover for you, or get out of business.

[FieryDove]

tmp7704 wrote...

To be fair, not paying that much attention to the commercial aspects had likely large part in BioWare eventually coming under EA label -- a company has to make money to stay afloat, and when you can't finance yourself well enough then you either need someone who can cover for you, or get out of business.

The merger with pandemic was a bad idea. It led to doom just as I predicted.

[The Executioner]

Fireblader70 wrote...

EA might not tell them what to do, that would be ridiculously stupid considering Bioware's track record, but they can definitely push for a tighter release date.

Thus, we have Dragon Age 2. A game that was seriously intended to be the next big thing, but ended up being rushed and cut down instead. At least... that's how I see it now.

Bioware was under the EA umbrella when they made Origins maybe Bioware thought they didn't have to go all out on DA2 i don't know . They better clean up the problems in DA3 or alot of us will accuse them of selling out.

[FieryDove]

The Executioner wrote...

Bioware was under the EA umbrella when they made Origins maybe Bioware thought they didn't have to go all out on DA2 i don't know . They better clean up the problems in DA3 or alot of us will accuse them of selling out.

The game was almost complete by the time EA came into the picture. If it hadn't do you really think EA would have allowed 5+ years for development?

That is not EA's motto. It's fast and furious with bare minimum of post-release support.

[The Executioner]

FieryDove wrote...

The Executioner wrote...

Bioware was under the EA umbrella when they made Origins maybe Bioware thought they didn't have to go all out on DA2 i don't know . They better clean up the problems in DA3 or alot of us will accuse them of selling out.

The game was almost complete by the time EA came into the picture. If it hadn't do you really think EA would have allowed 5+ years for development?

That is not EA's motto. It's fast and furious with bare minimum of post-release support.

Thanks for the correction i honestly wasn't sure it say's EA on the box. That does change things . Certainly Bioware would have a respectable amount of autonomy written into the terms of the buyout/merger.

Modifié par The Executioner, 04 octobre 2011 - 09:25 .

[Fireblader70]

Well, since Mass Effect 3 and The Old Republic are obviously going to be worth the wait (in terms of profit), EA might have thought Dragon Age 2 was the lesser series and, therefore, a good way to keep that cash coming... which is why Inon Zur made the, uh, revealing comment a while back.
Just speculation.

[The Executioner]

[quote]The Executioner wrote...

[quote]FieryDove wrote...

[quote]The Executioner wrote...

Bioware was under the EA umbrella when they made Origins maybe Bioware thought they didn't have to go all out on DA2 i don't know . They better clean up the problems in DA3 or alot of us will accuse them of selling out.[/quote]

The game was almost complete by the time EA came into the picture. If it hadn't do you really think EA would have allowed 5+ years for development?

That is not EA's motto. It's fast and furious with bare minimum of post-release support. [/quote]

Modifié par The Executioner, 04 octobre 2011 - 09:23 .

[addiction21]

FieryDove wrote...

The Executioner wrote...

Bioware was under the EA umbrella when they made Origins maybe Bioware thought they didn't have to go all out on DA2 i don't know . They better clean up the problems in DA3 or alot of us will accuse them of selling out.

The game was almost complete by the time EA came into the picture. If it hadn't do you really think EA would have allowed 5+ years for development?

That is not EA's motto. It's fast and furious with bare minimum of post-release support.

Almost complete in october 2007 when that merger happened? Okay

[Gotholhorakh]

Interesting. I have this memory of someone saying they were in a rush to create content for the game because "EA really wanted to capitalize on the success of Origins, so the game was really being pushed hard to be released now.".

Seems like what's being said there is "this perception of EA as the whip-****** is caused by failure to realise that we are EA, we are part of EA, we're not being bossed around by them as an external entity".

They could be a little less ambiguous in expressing that! Right now it comes across as:
1. We're not controlled by EA +
2. We're controlled by ourselves +
3. We are EA.

[MerinTB]

addiction21 wrote...

FieryDove wrote...

The Executioner wrote...
Bioware was under the EA umbrella when they made Origins maybe Bioware thought they didn't have to go all out on DA2 i don't know . They better clean up the problems in DA3 or alot of us will accuse them of selling out.

The game was almost complete by the time EA came into the picture. If it hadn't do you really think EA would have allowed 5+ years for development?

That is not EA's motto. It's fast and furious with bare minimum of post-release support.

Almost complete in october 2007 when that merger happened? Okay

It was ready to release spring of 2009, and got delayed for the console port (maybe EA has some influence on that decision?) and had been in development since at least 2004 (I remember earlier rumblings from BioWare, but that's the official announcement year)... and they were shooting for a late 2007 / early 2008 release.  The game may not have actually been ready until 2009, or it is possible that the EA merger has some effect on the release date of the game.

All said and done, though, you had around 4 solid years of development before EA entered the picture, and at most one more year of development for the PC game before it was in beta phase with EA at all really having any say.  So 4/5's done, roughly, would be IMO qualifying as "almost complete" if your only criteria is number of years worked on.

[FieryDove]

addiction21 wrote...

Almost complete in october 2007 when that merger happened? Okay

The merger happened earlier and I wasn't talking about that I said EA. The deal of EA buying VG holding was announced in 2007 but didn't it get finalized in 2008?

Anyway, there were delays...deciding to port was probably the biggest.

[addiction21]

MerinTB wrote...

It was ready to release spring of 2009, and got delayed for the console port (maybe EA has some influence on that decision?) and had been in development since at least 2004 (I remember earlier rumblings from BioWare, but that's the official announcement year)... and they were shooting for a late 2007 / early 2008 release.  The game may not have actually been ready until 2009, or it is possible that the EA merger has some effect on the release date of the game.

All said and done, though, you had around 4 solid years of development before EA entered the picture, and at most one more year of development for the PC game before it was in beta phase with EA at all really having any say.  So 4/5's done, roughly, would be IMO qualifying as "almost complete" if your only criteria is number of years worked on.

I just dont agree with the "almomst complete" Thats more then a year between the merger/buyout and release and I doubt those mergers happen in a matter of days or even a few weeks.

We unfortuantly dont have the good information of how much was done at that time, what the development sceduale was or if it was a real solid 4 years of development. BioWare was in a phase of seemingly having some money troubles.

I do wonder what happened to that earlier release date. Was it optimistic thinking, just some rumblings, or the merger got it pushed back and if it was the merger did we get more development time because of EA? Maybe the Doctors did some slick talking for that while getting one of them (or both?) on the EA board?

Too much up in the air we dont really know.

We have all seen games get pushed out early and that 1/5 can mean a lot. Look at KoToR2.

FieryDove wrote...

The merger happened earlier and I wasn't talking about that I said EA. The deal of EA buying VG holding was announced in 2007 but didn't it get finalized in 2008?

Anyway, there were delays...deciding to port was probably the biggest.

http://www.1up.com/n...ioware-pandemic

Announced October and finalized in january.

I just dont agree with the "almost complete" thing. Thats just me.

Edit: Just crossed my mind but if it did have so much development time, if DA:O was almost dont, if EA is all about rushing games out to make a buck... why did DA:O get so much time?

SO its clear im no great fan of EA they have fallen kinda far in my eyes from http://chrishecker.c...r_Make_You_Cry? days.

Modifié par addiction21, 04 octobre 2011 - 10:46 .

[Melca36]

TheJediSaint wrote...

DA2 was a fine game, and I'm still playing it now. The problem is that a lot of people on Bioware social are like comic book fans, they think any kind of change is bad and must be reverted.

DA: 2 was a fun game for what it offered but for $60 I am not interested in seeing the same recycled environments over and over and over/ I loathed the Fetch and Delivery quests and thought they offered NOTHING to the game and the 3 act system made it seem like an incomplete game

As for the good parts of the game...............

The firendship/rivalry system/sidequests like Magistrates orders/ and the companion banter

Also...ACT was the BEST of the acts


The worse aspect of the game........

Act 3 was overly short and an unorganized mess

So it was not just about the game NOT being like Origins. It was a half completed game.

[csfteeeer]

TheJediSaint wrote...

 The problem is that a lot of people on Bioware social are like comic book fans, they think any kind of change is bad and must be reverted.

This argument more and more retarded every time i read it.

[DriftSpace]

Marionetten wrote...
When that quality ends up compromised due to assembly line design that weakens the whole operation as Dragon Age II proved.

I came here to complain some more about how much I dislike DA2, and how disappointed I am in BioWare since I've been such a huge fan since Baldur's Gate was released in 1998, but this comment basically sums it up. That interview was depressing; a bunch of visionary artists sold-out and are making concessions regarding marketing. "We think a lot more about the commercial elements than we used to." Yeah, and you also used to make a lot better games than you do now. Coincidence? I think not.

When art answers to commerce it ceases to be art; real art transcends commerce.

I am also not pre-ordering Dragon Age 3, and I'm ashamed that I trusted BioWare enough to pre-order Dragon Age 2. I am not buying Mark of the Assassin unless they fix Dragon Age 2 (until I can load my game, collect my last resource and get the damn Supplier trophy, among other things) and Legacy (no more invincible boss, inablities to save, etc.), and even then I probably won't buy Mark of the Assassin because I'm so disappointed.