216 réponses à ce sujet

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

The Executioner wrote...

One game is not a trend i'm gonna give them a mulligan this time.

QFT.

As to the rest of the topic, there were valid commercial reasons for rushing the game out the door. I believe the next RPG being anticipated at the time was The Witcher 2, so releasing before that to avoid the competition (and possibly snag people who were hankering for an RPG) was theoretically a good move. The preorder and initial sale stats appear to support this.

Whether the profits this garnered was worth the cost of not waiting and spending extra time to improve the game further, we'll never know. I get the feeling no matter how much time Bioware had spent polishing DA2, there would still be people who hated it or thought it didn't live up to Origins or whatever. A lot of the core mechanics, graphics and gameplay would have remained the same, so we'd still be whining about the same issues sans the 'rushed' one.

[cruelgretchen]

See the problem is the huge gape between DA:O and DA:2. I didnt realize at first too, but after i finished it a thought over i was convinced" this aint no RPG". it would be fine if theyd admit that , saying its an action adventure or something (yes those have story too) yet they label it with words like epic story and **** . An epic story isnt just on paper , an epic story is one i can actualy participate.And having Gamespot and IGN on the payroll just helps that  so much to justify a less successfull game.

Modifié par cruelgretchen, 09 octobre 2011 - 01:35 .

[ElitePinecone]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Whether the profits this garnered was worth the cost of not waiting and spending extra time to improve the game further, we'll never know. I get the feeling no matter how much time Bioware had spent polishing DA2, there would still be people who hated it or thought it didn't live up to Origins or whatever. A lot of the core mechanics, graphics and gameplay would have remained the same, so we'd still be whining about the same issues sans the 'rushed' one.

That's an interesting way to think of it. 

I guess it depends on how much of the DA2 criticism was for its changed mechanics, and how much was for its alleged unpolishedness. Or some combination of the two. 

Personally I liked (or didn't mind) many of the changes, they were just somewhat poorly executed and the overall quality was lacking. 

It's actually a difficult conondrum for Bioware: if they interpret the criticism of DA2 as just "people wanting Origins again", the solution becomes putting in more Origins-esque RPG elements, but I'd argue there's a lot of people who didn't mind the changes (or even preferred them) but were turned off by the glaring lack of quality. 

Then again, so much of the game seems to have been built from from a foundation or assumption of a lack of resources and time in development; things like the decision to have one origin and to spend all of the game in Kirkwall would've been made very early on in development, presumably with the knowledge of a limited budget. 

I'd suggest things would be vastly different, in terms of the story and setting, if more time and resources had been alloacted from the start. Since most of my problems with DA2 were with the confined, jumbled narrative/scope and environments (rather than the art or mechanics), I don't think an extra six months could've changed what were fundamentals decided at the start of development. 

[cruelgretchen]

ElitePinecone wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Whether the profits this garnered was worth the cost of not waiting and spending extra time to improve the game further, we'll never know. I get the feeling no matter how much time Bioware had spent polishing DA2, there would still be people who hated it or thought it didn't live up to Origins or whatever. A lot of the core mechanics, graphics and gameplay would have remained the same, so we'd still be whining about the same issues sans the 'rushed' one.

That's an interesting way to think of it. 

I guess it depends on how much of the DA2 criticism was for its changed mechanics, and how much was for its alleged unpolishedness. Or some combination of the two. 

Personally I liked (or didn't mind) many of the changes, they were just somewhat poorly executed and the overall quality was lacking. 

It's actually a difficult conondrum for Bioware: if they interpret the criticism of DA2 as just "people wanting Origins again", the solution becomes putting in more Origins-esque RPG elements, but I'd argue there's a lot of people who didn't mind the changes (or even preferred them) but were turned off by the glaring lack of quality. 

Then again, so much of the game seems to have been built from from a foundation or assumption of a lack of resources and time in development; things like the decision to have one origin and to spend all of the game in Kirkwall would've been made very early on in development, presumably with the knowledge of a limited budget. 

I'd suggest things would be vastly different, in terms of the story and setting, if more time and resources had been alloacted from the start. Since most of my problems with DA2 were with the confined, jumbled narrative/scope and environments (rather than the art or mechanics), I don't think an extra six months could've changed what were fundamentals decided at the start of development. 

compare mods made for oblivion if you ned comparsion . Theres a german cummunity that has total converions to add ons worth +70  hours gameplay +voiceover ect . Now these dudes have god knows how much over that yt they come up with recycled stuff....no excuse

[The Executioner]

ElitePinecone wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Whether the profits this garnered was worth the cost of not waiting and spending extra time to improve the game further, we'll never know. I get the feeling no matter how much time Bioware had spent polishing DA2, there would still be people who hated it or thought it didn't live up to Origins or whatever. A lot of the core mechanics, graphics and gameplay would have remained the same, so we'd still be whining about the same issues sans the 'rushed' one.

That's an interesting way to think of it. 

I guess it depends on how much of the DA2 criticism was for its changed mechanics, and how much was for its alleged unpolishedness. Or some combination of the two. 

Personally I liked (or didn't mind) many of the changes, they were just somewhat poorly executed and the overall quality was lacking. 

It's actually a difficult conondrum for Bioware: if they interpret the criticism of DA2 as just "people wanting Origins again", the solution becomes putting in more Origins-esque RPG elements, but I'd argue there's a lot of people who didn't mind the changes (or even preferred them) but were turned off by the glaring lack of quality. 

Then again, so much of the game seems to have been built from from a foundation or assumption of a lack of resources and time in development; things like the decision to have one origin and to spend all of the game in Kirkwall would've been made very early on in development, presumably with the knowledge of a limited budget. 

I'd suggest things would be vastly different, in terms of the story and setting, if more time and resources had been alloacted from the start. Since most of my problems with DA2 were with the confined, jumbled narrative/scope and environments (rather than the art or mechanics), I don't think an extra six months could've changed what were fundamentals decided at the start of development. 

I would argue that RPG depth and customization is what makes a great RPG when you cut back on those things it's an action game with RPG elements like Mass Effect and most of us don't want a Mass Effect type game if it means cutting back on what makes a great RPG like Origins.. Such as full customization of my party a world map. Armor pen stats for weapons and armor.  Critical chance stats to score critical hits .A full set of stats for weapons and armor. Armor and weapons for each class. Mage armor not just robes. A full set of attribute stats to level up for me and my party. Skills and abilities that can be leveled up. Different class types warrior ,mage ,rogue and different races and so on.  DA2 cut way back on that stuff turned it into Mass Effect in the DA universe not a good decision not good at all. DA and Mass Effect are different Mass Effect is a shooter with RPG elements and it's great i own both games, BUT DA needs to be kept a more traditional pen and paper type game in trems of RPG depth but keep the gameplay and combat intact but more realistic somewhere in between Origins and DA2.

Modifié par The Executioner, 09 octobre 2011 - 04:14 .

[Barry Bathernak]

why is anyone get even more annoyed at bioware since there at the point where watching them dig a deeper whole isn't funny anymore its just sad really really sad.

also tool kit ≠ no more money from item sets,i mean look at f:nv and the gun runners/couriers stash dlc's those sold well even on p.c.

and if they really dont have to really listen to e.a. much and that they could take all the time they need and make it the way they wanted to,then they really messed up and just didn't care.

Modifié par Barry Bathernak, 09 octobre 2011 - 03:22 .

[Playest]

 I'd like to try to steer this thread away from becoming the 10,000th DA2 sucks thread.

Instead focus on why it was pushed out the door so quickly.

Modifié par Playest, 09 octobre 2011 - 03:11 .

[cruelgretchen]

Whatever BW will be down the ****drain once the ME and DA franchise is deadite.
And its so funny that BW founders dont realize this .
once Origins had the same Spot as a super game dev with system shock , Ultima , wing commander ect .
EA managed to blew it into particles ...and garriot was a rich son btw

i see the same patterns here , lazy developed games ..mediocore Swotor everthing Bioware was not known for

Canada youve been eaten by slopy USA once again

Modifié par cruelgretchen, 09 octobre 2011 - 03:40 .

[ElitePinecone]

Playest wrote...

 I'd like to try to steer this thread away from becoming the 10,000th DA2 sucks thread.

Instead focus on why it was pushed out the door so quickly.

It's a valid question, but we don't know and we'll probably never know. Anything we guess is only ever a guess. 

Did Bioware gamble that they could make a game to 'excite and delight' their fans in eighteen months or so? Did they genuinely believe they were on to a winning formula? Was it released to cash in on Origins' success, as some articles have said? 

Whatever the reason, the reaction and sales were poor to say the least. I doubt we'll see another rushed development for DA3; the fact that the DLCs have taken months and months to develop is promising. 

[naledgeborn]

I think DA2 might have been a statement. They've admitted that it was an experiment. I think it went down like this... "If we can push this out the door as fast as possible and still make profits then it proves this IP is worth keeping." Or they were just trying to see how the casual gamer would respond to a streamlined fantasy RPG. Either way I think they've learned from DA2 (Legacy). Now if the team can get the time and resources to make DA3 what DA2 should have been I won't be as skeptical of BW.

Hopefully they keep the engine and build on it instead of going back to the drawing board. Switching up from DA:O to DA2 is probably what took up the bulk of their development time and what was responsible for issues like recycled maps, import bugs, and enemy waves.

Modifié par naledgeborn, 09 octobre 2011 - 04:01 .

[cruelgretchen]

@naledgeborn this is cracking me up seriously
create a game at full price as an experiment? you know what that is ? a shabby excuse for
we created ****. do we get our money back??..cuz obviously the experiment went wrong and even mutated with its dlc

Modifié par cruelgretchen, 09 octobre 2011 - 04:05 .

[In Exile]

ElitePinecone wrote...
I guess it depends on how much of the DA2 criticism was for its changed mechanics, and how much was for its alleged unpolishedness. Or some combination of the two.

DA2 had 2 fundamental flaws: 1) the story was a mess and 2) player choice did not exist, especially relative to the scale you would expect based on the marketing of a reactive, 10-year personal story. 

If DA2 had, say, executed a good and branching plot like TW2 and didn't suffer from the terrible recycled environments, I think you would have seen what we could call the ME2 effect, i.e. commercial success, general satisfaction with the game, plus a dedicated group of people that see Bioware as betraying the RPG genre.

But DA2 didn't have a good story, a branching plot... or otherwise any kind of good narrative design. It just seemed to look at every design flaw in DA:O and design to double down on it. And suddenly the fanbase wasn't wiling to cut Bioware slack, so there was a double whammy: 1) all the narrative criticism that should have been there for DA:O suddenly gets noticed and 2) the game is mediocre with some glaring flaws and gets shredded. 

Modifié par In Exile, 09 octobre 2011 - 05:29 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

ElitePinecone wrote...

I guess it depends on how much of the DA2 criticism was for its changed mechanics, and how much was for its alleged unpolishedness. Or some combination of the two.

Personally I liked (or didn't mind) many of the changes, they were just somewhat poorly executed and the overall quality was lacking.

Indeed. It varies from person to person. One person will always hate the paraphrase system, another will despise the revamped combat animations, a third will hate PC VOs, lack of item descriptions, enemy waves, recycled areas, the list goes on.

But not all of those changes are a result of rushing the game as some were conscious design decisions rathat than "We won't have time for this." While I think a longer development time would have improved DA2, I am not convinced it would have resulted in a title everyone loved.

After all, DA:O had a crapload of time and even it was not universally adored down to the last pixel.

It's actually a difficult conondrum for Bioware: if they interpret the criticism of DA2 as just "people wanting Origins again", the solution becomes putting in more Origins-esque RPG elements, but I'd argue there's a lot of people who didn't mind the changes (or even preferred them) but were turned off by the glaring lack of quality.

Agreed on all counts. With all the (often conflicting) feedback they've received, it'll be interesting to see how they proceed. Hopefully they'll take a little more time with the next title though. I mean, if even the music designer and voice actors were commenting on how time-constrained and different the development atmosphere felt due to the rush, that's not a good thing IMO. :/

Then again, so much of the game seems to have been built from from a foundation or assumption of a lack of resources and time in development; things like the decision to have one origin and to spend all of the game in Kirkwall would've been made very early on in development, presumably with the knowledge of a limited budget. 

I'd suggest things would be vastly different, in terms of the story and setting, if more time and resources had been alloacted from the start. Since most of my problems with DA2 were with the confined, jumbled narrative/scope and environments (rather than the art or mechanics), I don't think an extra six months could've changed what were fundamentals decided at the start of development. 

Thats certainly a thing. I wonder when they did find out what their deadline was? Those things have a habit of moving. We have the company's word they would never rush something out the door unless they feel it's ready, yet the recycled areas alone show corners were cut to meet that deadline.

As for the story, perhaps. The disjointed narrative many experienced might have had more to do with something like too many cooks than not enough time, or the heavy focus on shiny cinematics (not that I know for sure, mind. Just possibilities). There are certain story points in the game that, being deemed pivotal or chosen for being dramatic, I doubt would have changed.

Despite everything, I do think DA2 is rather impressive for its short development time. It's just sad that it's so obvious it was pushed out the door. :/

[Stanley Woo]

Some spam and bickering removed. Let's try to keep things on topic and civil, please.

[Morroian]

ElitePinecone wrote...

Playest wrote...

 I'd like to try to steer this thread away from becoming the 10,000th DA2 sucks thread.

Instead focus on why it was pushed out the door so quickly.

It's a valid question, but we don't know and we'll probably never know. Anything we guess is only ever a guess. 

There was speculation early on that March was the only open spot in the release schedule, as it was ME2 got delayed so DA2 could theoretically have come out in its original release slot. 

[DriftSpace]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

"we think a lot more about the commercial elements than we used to," Zeschuk explained.

The likely reason we have to do so

EDIT: I think I fixed it

:ph34r:Petty sniping removed

Modifié par casamar, 09 octobre 2011 - 05:05 .

[AlexXIV]

It's PR. If it is 'dishonest' then as much as anything you can hear or read any producer say about their product. We have had enough talk about the (state of the) industry, business, etc. on this forum. I guess not everyone here is following the BSN for months or even years, but basically it has all been said already.

Bottomline, you can't honestly expect any Bioware employee, not to mention the bosses, say something bad about their company, even if it was true. It's so not going to happen. Simply because if you are being honest you may get some good reactions, but most will rather be negative.

[shepisavanguardgetoverit]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

"we think a lot more about the commercial elements than we used to," Zeschuk explained.

The likely reason we have to do so

EDIT: I think I fixed it

Don't get me wrong Stanley but the costs of developing a pc game can't really be justified for what is annoying people the most about DAII.  I get that these things are expensive, but I would've happily paid $100-$150 on DAII provided it lived up to the huge standard that DA:O forged on its own, and I would've waited longer for it as well.  To put it in perspective, I played DA:O for 2 months straight, and about 25 playthroughs.  I played DAII for 2 weeks and 6 playthroughs. I payed $100 for Origins and $60 for DAII.  Esentially half the game, exactly

However, just let me say that Legacy IS a step in the right direction, and if DA3 or DA2 expansion follow that formulae, then the future of the Dragon Age franchise is looking good. 

[Morroian]

shepisavanguardgetoverit wrote...

Don't get me wrong Stanley but the costs of developing a pc game can't really be justified for what is annoying people the most about DAII.  I get that these things are expensive, but I would've happily paid $100-$150 on DAII provided it lived up to the huge standard that DA:O forged on its own, and I would've waited longer for it as well. 

You may have but not a lot would.

[Stanley Woo]

shepisavanguardgetoverit wrote...
Don't get me wrong Stanley but the costs of developing a pc game can't really be justified for what is annoying people the most about DAII.

I was merely responding to Greg's quote and why it might be that we're "thinking more about commercialization" now than, for example, 10 years ago which people are kinda touting as the halcyon days of BioWare, RPG development, and game quality.

I get that these things are expensive, but I would've happily paid $100-$150 on DAII provided it lived up to the huge standard that DA:O forged on its own, and I would've waited longer for it as well.  To put it in perspective, I played DA:O for 2 months straight, and about 25 playthroughs.  I played DAII for 2 weeks and 6 playthroughs. I payed $100 for Origins and $60 for DAII.  Esentially half the game, exactly

Unfortunately, you're not the only person we have to please or sell to. If there was a market of those willing to pay $100-$150 and waited longer, if that was something that we could guarantee, things may have worked out differently. While such claims and intentions are noble, and we appreciate the sentiment, unless we have a huge-normous portion of the market willing to do that, it's just not going to work out. And good luck getting even 1000 folks on this forum to agree to something like that, let alone the gaming public at large.

However, just let me say that Legacy IS a step in the right direction, and if DA3 or DA2 expansion follow that formulae, then the future of the Dragon Age franchise is looking good. 

Thank you. it's nice to hear positivity and hope coming from the community once in a while. We hope to be able to live up to that hope.

[rolson00]

Stanley Woo wrote...

shepisavanguardgetoverit wrote...
Don't get me wrong Stanley but the costs of developing a pc game can't really be justified for what is annoying people the most about DAII.

I was merely responding to Greg's quote and why it might be that we're "thinking more about commercialization" now than, for example, 10 years ago which people are kinda touting as the halcyon days of BioWare, RPG development, and game quality.

I get that these things are expensive, but I would've happily paid $100-$150 on DAII provided it lived up to the huge standard that DA:O forged on its own, and I would've waited longer for it as well.  To put it in perspective, I played DA:O for 2 months straight, and about 25 playthroughs.  I played DAII for 2 weeks and 6 playthroughs. I payed $100 for Origins and $60 for DAII.  Esentially half the game, exactly

Unfortunately, you're not the only person we have to please or sell to. If there was a market of those willing to pay $100-$150 and waited longer, if that was something that we could guarantee, things may have worked out differently. While such claims and intentions are noble, and we appreciate the sentiment, unless we have a huge-normous portion of the market willing to do that, it's just not going to work out. And good luck getting even 1000 folks on this forum to agree to something like that, let alone the gaming public at large.

However, just let me say that Legacy IS a step in the right direction, and if DA3 or DA2 expansion follow that formulae, then the future of the Dragon Age franchise is looking good. 

Thank you. it's nice to hear positivity and hope coming from the community once in a while. We hope to be able to live up to that hope.

i should imagine there quite a few mr woo i live in the uk so da:o and its dlc cost 1 third more for me than someone from the us

Modifié par rolson00, 11 octobre 2011 - 05:35 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Stanley Woo wrote...

The likely reason we have to do so

But that's only happening because you're wasting resources on things like voice acting and cinematics.

[Xewaka]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...
The likely reason we have to do so

But that's only happening because you're wasting resources on things like voice acting and cinematics.

It is only a waste if you don't consider them to be relevant to the main target audience. I would wager the main target audience Bioware was going for would see such things as either welcome or indispensable.

Modifié par Xewaka, 11 octobre 2011 - 05:49 .