216 réponses à ce sujet

[Stanley Woo]

Merci357 wrote...
Since you made the analogy to the movie business - you know the big players in hollywood produce not only AAA movies. For every Avatar made, there are also plenty of smaller ones, often catering to niche markets, made by the very same studio. A horror movie is far from Avatars budget, but in this niche market is still money to be made, otherwise they wouldn't be produced. And sometimes a low budget movie becomes a surprise big hit, not because it has a huge marketing machine behind it, but because of "word of mouth". Think, say, Blair Witch Project.

Why is this so different in the games industry?

It isn't. Movie studios generally have different imprints working on different types of movies, just as publishers have different dev studios working on different kinds of games. EA has the BioWare group for RPGs and MMOs, and within that group, BioWare Mythic and BioWare Austin do MMOs while EA2D does digital games and BioWare Edmonton and Montreal are working on the two RPG franchises. DICE is working on Battlefield 3, and there's a whole truckload of people working under the EA Sports umbrella.

There's a metric truckload of stuff going on behind the scenes of game development that just isn't visible to most gamers, and without intimate knowledge of these things, people don't realize just how much work goes into making a game or a movie or releasing a novel. The sheer scope of a national or international release of a multimillion dollar project is ridiculously mind-boggling! I find it fascinating, but then, i've been in the industry for 10 years. Some of our fans may be familiar with big business or large projects, but I think few have been involved in project this big.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Stanley Woo wrote...

There's a metric truckload of stuff going on behind the scenes of game development that just isn't visible to most gamers, and without intimate knowledge of these things, people don't realize just how much work goes into making a game or a movie or releasing a novel. The sheer scope of a national or international release of a multimillion dollar project is ridiculously mind-boggling! I find it fascinating, but then, i've been in the industry for 10 years. Some of our fans may be familiar with big business or large projects, but I think few have been involved in project this big.

Could you expand a bit on how much this has changed in the past 10 years, and why?

[Stanley Woo]

I believe i've already covered this, if not in this thread, then in others. in brief:

- the increased cost of game development
- the emergence of new gaming and communications technology
- ubiquitous adoption of things like always-on broadband internet, mobile phones, portable computing, etc.
- videogaming being adopted by the mainstream
- increased competition
- changing tastes

[Akka le Vil]

shepisavanguardgetoverit wrote...

Akka, while mistakes have been made with many games and there expansions, if you release more of the same each time over and over again, the game stagnates. The genre as a whole stagnates, as you keep getting more of the same.

Stanley made the same weird reasoning, so I'll just quote myself for the answer about it :

I don't get this argument, sorry. I never said anything against innovation. In fact, my whole example about games that set apart the rest is precisely about game that ARE innovative, and which are RIPPED of precisely this innovativeness to sink back into the same bland "casual/broader audience/streamlined/etc." crap.
The examples I've given were all about games that WERE apart from the "mainstream". How the heck slashing them from their own particularities and blending them back into the same mold can count as "innovation" ? It's the EXACT OPPOSITE !

Perfect example of this is the Modern Warfare series, each game is pretty much the same - same overall plot, same gameplay, same amount of pre-pubescent 12year old's in multiplayer who squeal and complain like babies when they die despite the fact this is a MA15+ game (but I digress-mini rant there srry - i'l shut up now).

You realize that Modern Warfare is (again, I pointed it in my answer to Stanley) precisely the paragon of this new "catch-all design" designed for "broader audience" with "streamlined gameplay" and the like ?

Seems you're very confused about what I'm saying (maybe I wasn't clear enough ?), because you're trying to disprove my point by using the same arguments I made to build it

While I admit I don't necessary agree with some of the changes Bioware made with DAII, the game is still playable.  It is NOT a failure, to say that it is, as you have stated above, is untrue, and quite frankly, a little biased. 

Again, it seems I didn't made my point clear : what I call a failure is the attempt to get a hit by using a franchise that had some particular point setting it apart the "mainstream", and removing these points (thus making it again part of the mainstream). It's conceptually absurd (you use a franchise because it works well, then you remove what makes it work ; it's pretty obvious that it will then doesn't work as well...) and reality tells that it doesn't work well in practice (just which non-mainstream "great game" became a better game with a better long-term appreciation and noticeably better sales, by removing the telling elements from it ?).

As such, making non-mainstream franchise mainstream doesn't improve their sales, hence it's a failure.
Is it more clear ?

Everyone at Bioware knows what there doing.  They made the changes to the formula to try to improve the experience for all.

No, and they themselves said it was made to "increase their audience". You don't dumb down a game to "improve the experience", that's just PR talk. Please.

Modifié par Akka le Vil, 13 octobre 2011 - 06:16 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Stanley Woo wrote...

- the increased cost of game development

No costs have gone up.  The thngs you were doing before cost the same or cheaper than they used to do.  The increased costs come only from new features you're adding.  But wait...

- videogaming being adopted by the mainstream
- changing tastes

I dispute that tastes have changed.  Mine certainly haven't.

What's changed is the market you're targetting.  The market you're targetting - the "mainstream" - is a different (and less homogeneous) group.  Their tastes are different from the market you used to target, and their tastes require games that are more expensive to develop.

The gamers whom you used to target are still there, and that market is just as lucrative as it was before.  But that market can never give you a blockbuster, and you're chasing a blockbuster.  Somewhere alone the line, studios decided that 10 million units was an achievable goal, and, ignoring whether it was a desirable goal (obviously it is, all else being equal, but all else isn't equal), decided to shoot for it every time.

This is much like how you can look at feature films before-Jaws and after-Jaws - Jaws set a new bar for success, and after-Jaws everyone wanted to be that successful.

Your ROI hasn't improved at all.  Your potential ROI, however, has gotten bigger.  You've just tacked bigger error bars onto your ROI projections.  That doesn't benefit anyone.

[MerinTB]

Stanley Woo wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
What is it you are comparing them to, Stanley?  I don't want to say "bad analogy" because I can poke holes in how different things are, I hate when people do that, but what you actually said doesn't connect.  If on nothing else, the Serenity comment screams of ignorance (and by ignorance I mean you not knowing much about Browncoats)...

Like with one lesser-selling game, a new Star Trek reboot, a poorly-grossing Firefly movie, or a polarizing Star Wars direction does not signal the death of a franchise or mass desrtion of the franchise by the fanbase. So folks should not start spouting doom and gloom for a company or franchise based on a single product that they didn't like, didn't sell well, or went in a different direction than they'd like.

Ah.

Contextually I still think Firefly/Serenity is a bad pick, and even with a reboot I don't think Star Trek is a good example either.
Star Wars is a perfect example.  It's still chugging along quite strongly.

Overall though, I guess I see the analogy.  My apologies.

[TheJediSaint]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...
- the increased cost of game development

No costs have gone up.  The thngs you were doing before cost the same or cheaper than they used to do.  The increased costs come only from new features you're adding.  But wait...

No offense, but what planet do you spend most of your time?  The cost of developing AAA game titles has skyrocketed.  As the technology becomes more sophisticated, you need to have either more people or more time to develop a game with current technology.  And since Bioware games are VA heavy, that's even more people that you have to pay.  

Modifié par TheJediSaint, 13 octobre 2011 - 08:40 .

[Akka le Vil]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

What's changed is the market you're targetting.  The market you're targetting - the "mainstream" - is a different (and less homogeneous) group.  Their tastes are different from the market you used to target, and their tastes require games that are more expensive to develop.

The gamers whom you used to target are still there, and that market is just as lucrative as it was before.  But that market can never give you a blockbuster, and you're chasing a blockbuster.  Somewhere alone the line, studios decided that 10 million units was an achievable goal, and, ignoring whether it was a desirable goal (obviously it is, all else being equal, but all else isn't equal), decided to shoot for it every time.

That's more or less one of the argument I have been making, but it's much better and more clearly expressed here ^^

[MerinTB]

TheJediSaint wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...
- the increased cost of game development

No costs have gone up.  The thngs you were doing before cost the same or cheaper than they used to do.  The increased costs come only from new features you're adding.  But wait...

No offense, but what planet do you spend most of your time?  The cost of developing AAA game titles has skyrocketed.  As the technology becomes more sophisticated, you need to have either more people or more time to develop a game with current technology.  And since Bioware games are VA heavy, that's even more people that you have to pay.  

He means, to make the exact same game, it would be cheaper NOW to make Baldur's Gate 2, for example, than it was back in 2000.  Quicker, too.

He means that it would be cheaper now, in analogy, to make the exact same Star Trek show than it was in 1966.  Quicker, too.

If you want to make a MODERN game, with higher graphics, more voice actors, more sophisticate game engines, etc., it's more expensive.

Just like, in analogy, it was more expensive to make an episode of Enterprise than of Star Trek TOS.

And, before the pedants arrive, I mean in adjusted dollars.  Relative costs.

All the newer stuff in games are what make them more expensive.

Just like Star Wars: A New Hope, made today with models and relative unknowns, would be far cheaper than Phantom Menace, with (then) state of the art tech and big name stars.

Adding the more expensive stuff is what makes it expensive, not that making movies overall is more expensive.

---

It's a valid argument.  Whether you agree that a Star Trek TOS episode would garner enough of an audience to make it worth doing, even at reduced prices as it would be, is beside his point.
Just like making a BG2 game now could be debateable whether it would be worth doing / have enough of an audience, but would still be cheaper than a DA2.

Modifié par MerinTB, 13 octobre 2011 - 08:47 .

[Xewaka]

TheJediSaint wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...
- the increased cost of game development

No costs have gone up.  The thngs you were doing before cost the same or cheaper than they used to do.  The increased costs come only from new features you're adding.  But wait...

No offense, but what planet do you spend most of your time?  The cost of developing AAA game titles has skyrocketed.  As the technology becomes more sophisticated, you need to have either more people or more time to develop a game with current technology.  And since Bioware games are VA heavy, that's even more people that you have to pay.  

Technically, developing what ten years ago was considered AAA has become cheaper. However, the definition of AAA game has changed since then. What was AAA ten years ago is considered Indie now.

[sycophanticchallenger]

TheJediSaint wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...
- the increased cost of game development

No costs have gone up.  The thngs you were doing before cost the same or cheaper than they used to do.  The increased costs come only from new features you're adding.  But wait...

No offense, but what planet do you spend most of your time?  The cost of developing AAA game titles has skyrocketed.  As the technology becomes more sophisticated, you need to have either more people or more time to develop a game with current technology.  And since Bioware games are VA heavy, that's even more people that you have to pay.  

How much could they have possibly "skyrocketed" in the 15 months that passed between DAO's launch and DA2's launch? 

[Sylvius the Mad]

TheJediSaint wrote...

No offense, but what planet do you spend most of your time?  The cost of developing AAA game titles has skyrocketed.  As the technology becomes more sophisticated, you need to have either more people or more time to develop a game with current technology.  And since Bioware games are VA heavy, that's even more people that you have to pay.  

As others who've already responded have pointed out, you're measuring using a moving scale.  What's increased over time isn't the cost of game elements, but the cost of the combined game elements that comprise any period's definition of AAA title.

The definition is the thing that changed.  Correct for that, and your supposed inflating cost disappears.

[Brockololly]

Stanley Woo wrote...
- changing tastes

I question how much tastes have really changed. There is a reason people have been shelling out $60 or so for Madden games for the past decade or two. Or how people shell out money on every single Call of Duty or FPS.

The problem is that the genre focused games so prevalent even 10 years ago have mostly gotten sucked into the allure of becoming big budget blockbuster titles like your Call of Duty or Maddens of the gaming world. 10 years ago, you had genre games like BG2 or Half Life or Starcraft all being hugely successful and at the top of what they were trying to do. They all played and looked different but each one was at the top of their respective genre. Yet once you had the likes of CoD make it huge, you see so many other devs/publishers  try to copy that formula and ditch the more niche audience they had thrived with in making more focused games for a more focused audience.

To the extent that all this copycat behavior results in more money going into any given project to try and make the next blockbuster, but with more money it seems less risk and more copycat behavior in terms of how the games are built and designed, resulting in homogenous products that all end up looking and playing and being marketed the same way.

For every Call of Duty you probably have a dozen other games trying to be AAA which end up considered "failures" when if they had set their expectations differently and maybe aimed for a more genre focused experience and a more defined audience, they could find a niche and thrive, over time building up their audience through word of mouth from that core group of fans.

And then with the unsustainable growth in cost for games trying to be AAA, you end up with publishers resorting to more nickel and diming of consumers to try and monetize every little thing possible to recoup the bloated cost of development.

Modifié par Brockololly, 13 octobre 2011 - 10:17 .

[DarkDragon777]

Stanley Woo wrote...

I believe i've already covered this, if not in this thread, then in others. in brief:

- the increased cost of game development
- the emergence of new gaming and communications technology
- ubiquitous adoption of things like always-on broadband internet, mobile phones, portable computing, etc.
- videogaming being adopted by the mainstream
- increased competition
- changing tastes

The emergence of new gaming and communicating technologies that have nothing to with the types of games you guys develop prompts you to start incorporating them despite the decrease in your sales overall for games? Videogaming going mainstream doesn't give you the opportunity to advertise the now "unique" types of games you are, well were, making, instead of trying to blend them with the other typical genres that infest the market?

[Sowtaaw]

nice post brockolly just look how many studios closed down this generation.

[FedericoV]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I dispute that there are any action components in DA2.  They just made the combat faster to make it look like action combat, even though it isn't.
 
In fact, it's even less like action combat that DAO's combat is because the characters are stuck in their animations and cannot change activities at any time - DA2 is more like turn-based combat than anything BioWare has ever made.

I believe that you are mistaken on that one.

Combat in DA2 is contact based and attacks do not miss. On normal difficulty on the consolles you are meant to play the game in real time clicking for each attack. There is only one relevant skill at the end: DPS. Everything is balanced on DPS. Health and Mana regenerates. There is no permadeath. Yes, there are a lot of classic RPG features running under the hood, the system consider the value of each stats but unfortunately we do not know how the rules work, so it's very difficult to judge their importance and make reasoned choices outside DPS.

Yes, it's an hybrid between action and semi turn based rpgs, but it's more actiony than DA:O on almost any level.

Modifié par FedericoV, 13 octobre 2011 - 10:37 .

[glosoli]

Well.. I read all of the comments on the topic. It will be my first post on bioware forums and english is not my native language, sorry if i say anything wrong.

Having a quickly developed game after a small period of time or having a masterpiece for a couple years of waiting... It's a dilemma, there are many people that likes both options. I, myself, like to see a DA game as a masterpiece and I don't like to play an "eh.. it's ok" game every year. I'd like to play two masterpiece DA games in 5 years, but everyone has different ideas.

Most of the Bioware fans played BG games and has been loyal since. in that case, most of Bioware fanbase is on their late 20's now. Most of them (us) will not have enough time to play games because of marriage, work etc. in a couple years so... Playing a short DA game every year makes sence in that case. I see the point when looking in that perspective. And most my friends that plays console games have the idea of having DA game every year than waiting for a long time.

Bioware has enough credits for me to develop an "eh, it's ok game" for once in a while, quick relase or not. I can't complain. I do enjoyed DA II but it came out at the same period with The Witcher II and TW II got all my attention after seeing the comments on DA II. It released before but I've been playing DA II since early September. I will only check DLCs on DA II, that's all. I'm not interested in having another playthrough. It was different on DA:O. It was a masterpiece. DA II is missing something... Atmosphere mostly.

That's all i want to say, sorry for the long post, regards.

[Sylvius the Mad]

FedericoV wrote...

Yes, it's an hybrid between action and semi turn based rpgs, but it's more actiony than DA:O on almost any level.

I completely disagree.  DAO allows a reactive combat style, where in any moment you can cause your character to do anything at all.

DA2 does not.  Once an action is triggered - even an auto-attack event - that action must be completed before the next action can begin.  This is exactly how turn-based combat works.  You're locked into your selected action until the next turn.

DAO is far more responsive to moment-to-moment instructions.  If a spider overwhelms a party member, you can trigger a stun attack right now to disrupt it.  In DA2, you cannot do that unless you were standing idle at the time.  If you were not standing idle (and there's no reason why you ever would be), then you cannot respond immediately.  You must wait until your next turn to act, which occurs as soon as your current action is complete.

[FedericoV]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I completely disagree.  DAO allows a reactive combat style, where in any moment you can cause your character to do anything at all. DA2 does not.  Once an action is triggered - even an auto-attack event - that action must be completed before the next action can begin.  This is exactly how turn-based combat works.  You're locked into your selected action until the next turn.

DAO is far more responsive to moment-to-moment instructions.  If a spider overwhelms a party member, you can trigger a stun attack right now to disrupt it.  In DA2, you cannot do that unless you were standing idle at the time.  If you were not standing idle (and there's no reason why you ever would be), then you cannot respond immediately.  You must wait until your next turn to act, which occurs as soon as your current action is complete.

Yes, in DA:O you could stop your current action and give a new order on the fly. Then, because of the shuffling in to position, the order you gave could not prove that useful... While in DA2 as soon as the current animation is over, when you push a button something happens, awesome or not, because the effect of the action happens at the beginning of the animation and the whole system is based on contact.

So, I think that the reactivity of DA2 is vasty superior to DA:O: but that's just one part of the "action" problem. Let's assume that you are right: the other elements I listed are still valid and they push DA2 toward the action side of things a lot more than DA:O. And finally, in both games the actions do not happens in sync (since there is not a turn based system and animation lenght is arbitrary), so they are both far from a semi turn based system like BG2, not to talk about a pure turn based system.

Modifié par FedericoV, 13 octobre 2011 - 11:17 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

FedericoV wrote...

Yes, in DA:O you could stop your current action and give a new order on the fly. Then, because of the shuffling in to position, the order you gave could not prove that useful... While in DA2 as soon as the current animation is over, when you push a button something happens, awesome or not, because the effect of the action happens at the beginning of the animation and the whole system is based on contact.

Now you're just spouting marketing boilerplate at me.  DA2 featuers just as much shuffling as DAO does.  If you trigger a melee ability when your target isn't in range, the character will shuffle to get there just like in DAO.  There is literally no difference to the shuffling.

The difference is that abilities can be interrupted in DAO, and they cannot in DA2.  DA2 makes you wait your turn to act, while DAO does not (nor did BG, for that matter, which is why I say that DA2 is the closest thing to turn-based combat BioWare has ever made - and I'm clearly right about that).

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 13 octobre 2011 - 11:31 .

[Playest]

I've edited the OP thanking Stanley Woo for taking the time to talk with us here.

Thanks a lot

[Playest]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
  DA2 featuers just as much shuffling as DAO does.  If you trigger a melee ability when your target isn't in range, the character will shuffle to get there just like in DAO.  There is literally no difference to the shuffling.

Not true DA 2 features a different "dash animation" for each of the weapons types and ytou close groud much faster than in origins. Like with a daggers rogue when you leap into the air and thrust both blades downward.

There are a lot of thing I didn't like about DA2 but that isn't one of them.

[Morroian]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Now you're just spouting marketing boilerplate at me.  DA2 featuers just as much shuffling as DAO does.  

It features some but nowhere near the same amount.

[Joy Divison]

Playest wrote...

Not true DA 2 features a different "dash animation" for each of the weapons types and ytou close groud much faster than in origins. Like with a daggers rogue when you leap into the air and thrust both blades downward.

There are a lot of thing I didn't like about DA2 but that isn't one of them.

He said "in range" and he is right about that.

Though I would have to say DA:2 has less shuffling than DA:O.

Modifié par Joy Divison, 14 octobre 2011 - 05:35 .

[Foolsfolly]

I'm not reading this thread... but the title made me think....


"BioWare says EA doesn't tell them what to do."

"Well, judging by Dragon Age 2 maybe they should start!"

[/laughs like Statler and Waldorf]

Alright, carry on.