209 réponses à ce sujet

[Melca36]

Rorschachinstein wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

No IT wasn't   To YOU it felt that way.

Its not necessarily the length so much as its the length combined with the lack of variety. The Fade and the Ashes crawl have a similar problem.

IMHO DAO was too long without enough variety and DA2 was too short. I've said it before but Awakenings got the length about right with variety in encounters and the environmnental design.

I agree about the FADE/Deep Roads but some of us want longer than a 20 hour expansion when it comes to a full game.

But annoyingly long dungeons are not the answer. Replaying the fade in Origins was a nightmare for me.

It was easy to do the FADE once you memorized it. You are entitled to hate it, I understand that but please keep in mind some of us had no problems with it.

They need a middle ground and not cater to one side of the fan base,

[Morroian]

Melca36 wrote...

I agree about the FADE/Deep Roads but some of us want longer than a 20 hour expansion when it comes to a full game.

Sure I was only talking about the length of the dungeon crawls not the whole game. 

[Melca36]

Morroian wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

I agree about the FADE/Deep Roads but some of us want longer than a 20 hour expansion when it comes to a full game.

Sure I was only talking about the length of the dungeon crawls not the whole game. 

Thanks for clarifying.

I definitely enjoyed the length of the Fade and the Deep Roads  in Awakenings.

[KilrB]

For me The Deep Roads, The Fade, and The Urn of Sacred Ashes were all great adventures.

The Fade however lost it's appeal about the third time through, and I used the "Skip the Fade" mod after that.

The Urn of Sacred Ashes is still fun and I want to explore more of The Deep Roads.

I want to discover and explore more abandoned thaigs and see the forgotten splendor of the Dwarven kingdoms.

Sure, it may be infested with spiders n' spawn and boring in parts, but what do you expect in an abandoned continent-spanning subterranean kingdom?

... besides lots'a loot and ep's?

Modifié par KilrB, 25 octobre 2011 - 12:08 .

[Nyreen]

"Wow, this game is boring. Now I'm going to spend $60 on the sequel."

More companies need to realize most customers don't use this loigic.

[RagingCyclone]

Joy Divison wrote...

The Deep Roads was probably my favorite part of Origins. The length was intentional - it SHOWED the player they were venturing far into abandoned territory. Caridin, Hespith, Honorable Topsider, Branca, Legion of the Dead, etc., all gave me an appreciation for the dwarven aspect of the Dragon Age and I'm not a big fan of dwarves. This was not a badly done dungeon crawl. It was quite good.

DA2 TELLS me I've ventured further than anyone - even the Wardens - have gone in centuries. Really? There were a few rooms and a couple of hallways all completed in a single play session.

And I don't really buy the "too long" argument. Guess what, you people complained about the Deep Roads being too long, the Fade being too long, X being too long and Bioware listened and gave us a SHORTER game in DA2. Thanks a lot. I hope you weren't also one of the many posters who complained that you spent the same money in Origins for the shorter game with more cinematics we got in DA2.

THIS!!! these types of crawls are what drew me from FPS to RPG's. Quick/Simple/To the Point was becoming boring for me. I like the ability to stop and look around at what is around me, maybe talk to my companions about their thoughts on where we were.  Games like Half Life and Doom had similar details in the environments, but no time to stop and enjoy the work the devs put into them. That's why I got bored with that genre and loved DAO, KOTOR, even ME1 & 2 give me a chance to stop and look around (yes I loved driving the mako around just looking at the planetscape). DA2's reuse of maps didn't help me with this. The dlc's were much more fun because I could stop and look at the world around me instead of having paratroopers dance on my head. And I know I am not alone in this move from one genre to the other. I am also probably a member of one of the older age groups to post on the forums. But to BW I say there is a market for the gen X'ers if you take the time and do it right. the dlc's show it is possible.

[Melca36]

RagingCyclone wrote...



THIS!!! these types of crawls are what drew me from FPS to RPG's. Quick/Simple/To the Point was becoming boring for me. I like the ability to stop and look around at what is around me, maybe talk to my companions about their thoughts on where we were.  Games like Half Life and Doom had similar details in the environments, but no time to stop and enjoy the work the devs put into them. That's why I got bored with that genre and loved DAO, KOTOR, even ME1 & 2 give me a chance to stop and look around (yes I loved driving the mako around just looking at the planetscape). DA2's reuse of maps didn't help me with this. The dlc's were much more fun because I could stop and look at the world around me instead of having paratroopers dance on my head. And I know I am not alone in this move from one genre to the other. I am also probably a member of one of the older age groups to post on the forums. But to BW I say there is a market for the gen X'ers if you take the time and do it right. the dlc's show it is possible.

I do think there is a generational divide when it comes to gaming.   I think a great many of the younger set want things handed to them and alot of them dont appreciate the aestheticsof a game. 

I also think the DLCs are were better looking than the actual game although there is a part of the Wounded Coast where you look out towards the seas and its truly gorgeous. 

I have always believed that a sequel should honor the original. DA:2 was a fun game but it did not honor the original. I know alot of the game can be attributed to cost cutting measures but it did seem like they catered to one side of the audience.

Its nice to know they are listening to feedback. The DLCs were great and I will buy the others.

I suspect though the ones who will be complaining the most when DA:3 comes out will be hardcore DA:2 fans.  

You already see it now since they seem to be the most vocal when complaining about the stealth features in MOTA.

[aries1001]

Yes, that may well be so, 4 million+ for DA:O while DA2 only so far has sold 2 around 2 millions.

However, DA2 took about 18 months to make while DA:O took about 5 years to make (from 2004-2009), or 7 if you count pre-production to be about 2 years. This means pre-production was started in 2002, production began in 2004, and it was released in november 2009.

And DA:O did cost a lot more to make than DA2 did, and sold only twice as many copies, while DA2 with a tighther (not so much money) budget sold about half of what DA:O did. And maybe cost half the prize of DA:O.

The point is this:
DA:O did not sell three or four times as many copies as DA2 did - as it, DAO, should have done if it were to be as profitable as DA2. DA:O took 3-4 times as long as DA2 to develop and thus took a lot more resources to make than DA2. (it shows in DA2, I agree here) But the point still stands.

Making a game in 18 months and selling about 2 millions could be (is) more profitable than making a game for about 5½ years and then selling 4 million copies.

[Yrkoon]

aries1001 wrote...


Making a game in 18 months and selling about 2 millions could be (is) more profitable than making a game for about 5½ years and then selling 4 million copies.

Sure,   And  since the process  itself doesn't require much time or resources, they can keep doing that.  It'll insure that every  subsequent  DA game  makes some sort of  profit  but remains a   niche-like product that sells like a 'budget" title; Never able to truly compete with Blizzard  or Bethesda  and the huge fan bases that their games carry.  And eventually, the Bioware name will disappear from the gaming mainstream all together.

Does that seem like a good  plan to you?


I only ask because Truly sucessful IPs are  long-term investments, where eventually, their reputation *alone* can guarantee 6 or 7+ Million in sales with every release.   And if a company is thinking about this end game, the absolute *worst* thing they can do is to pump out  a low-cost, low selling sequel so early in the process, even if it does manage to net a profit.   Because the IP's financial growth   (and reputation) gets stunted.  The proof of this will probably come with DA3.   Imagine DA2's sales, minus ~400,000 loyalty-based pre-orders generated from the sheer popularity of DA:O.     Doesn't sound  like a good business model, does it.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 25 octobre 2011 - 10:57 .

[Kekkis]

aries1001 wrote...

Making a game in 18 months and selling about 2 millions could be (is) more profitable than making a game for about 5½ years and then selling 4 million copies.

It also depends how much profit those Powerpoint goblins in dungeons of EA wanted to make. They aren´t just making games and then wait and see how much profit it makes, before making any future plans and budgets. For example if EA wanted to sell 5 million copies they already had plans how to use those profits.

[DKJaigen]

Yrkoon wrote...

aries1001 wrote...


Making a game in 18 months and selling about 2 millions could be (is) more profitable than making a game for about 5½ years and then selling 4 million copies.

Sure,   And  since the process  itself doesn't require much time or resources, they can keep doing that.  It'll insure that every  subsequent  DA game  makes some sort of  profit  but remains a   niche-like product that sells like a 'budget" title; Never able to truly compete with Blizzard  or Bethesda  and the huge fan bases that their games carry.  And eventually, the Bioware name will disappear from the gaming mainstream all together.

Does that seem like a good  plan to you?


I only ask because Truly sucessful IPs are  long-term investments, where eventually, their reputation *alone* can guarantee 6 or 7+ Million in sales with every release.   And if a company is thinking about this end game, the absolute *worst* thing they can do is to pump out  a low-cost, low selling sequel so early in the process, even if it does manage to net a profit.   Because the IP's financial growth   (and reputation) gets stunted.  The proof of this will probably come with DA3.   Imagine DA2's sales, minus ~400,000 loyalty-based pre-orders generated from the sheer popularity of DA:O.     Doesn't sound  like a good business model, does it.

You rant but you really should think for a moment what your saying. Bioware simply doesnt have the resources right now to do so. Thats why i hope that swtor becomes a wow killer so that Bioware ,who is my opinion a way better game designer then blizzard, will have the resources they need to produce great games. Otherwise they will be stuck on games like DA because no company is willing to burn a lot of resources on a franchise that maybe becomes a hit.

[Yuqi]

KilrB wrote...

Can we get some sax to go with the violins?

Some flutes too, oh and a Bard:wizard:

[Yrkoon]

DKJaigen wrote...

You rant but you really should think for a moment what your saying. Bioware simply doesnt have the resources right now to do so.

Eh?  Who has more resources  in the industry than EA?

And that's not my concern, anyway.  I'm a gamer.   Not a Bioware employee.   I only care about getting to play  Big, high quality, epic level games.    So when someone tells me that the reason Bioware can no longer produce a high quality epic level game for me to play  is because they "can't afford to",... well, that just makes me  want to return the favor.  The next time Bioware puts out a game, I will suddenly decide that I don't have the resources to  buy it.

Not that any of this matters. An epic, high quality game can still be made  inspite of limited resources.   Just ask CDprojekt  how they  managed to create Witcher 2  for less than $10 million... a  *fraction* of  DA2's production cost.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 25 octobre 2011 - 01:59 .

[Atakuma]

Yrkoon wrote...

Not that any of this matters. An epic, high quality game can still be made  inspite of limited resources.   Just ask CDprojekt  how they  managed to create Witcher 2  for less than $10 million... a  *fraction* of  DA2's production cost.

You don't even know DA2s production costs.

[OSUfan12121]

aries1001 wrote...

Yes, that may well be so, 4 million+ for DA:O while DA2 only so far has sold 2 around 2 millions.

However, DA2 took about 18 months to make while DA:O took about 5 years to make (from 2004-2009), or 7 if you count pre-production to be about 2 years. This means pre-production was started in 2002, production began in 2004, and it was released in november 2009.

And DA:O did cost a lot more to make than DA2 did, and sold only twice as many copies, while DA2 with a tighther (not so much money) budget sold about half of what DA:O did. And maybe cost half the prize of DA:O.

The point is this:
DA:O did not sell three or four times as many copies as DA2 did - as it, DAO, should have done if it were to be as profitable as DA2. DA:O took 3-4 times as long as DA2 to develop and thus took a lot more resources to make than DA2. (it shows in DA2, I agree here) But the point still stands.

Making a game in 18 months and selling about 2 millions could be (is) more profitable than making a game for about 5½ years and then selling 4 million copies.

Look at the GTA series it usually takes about 4 years for a sequel yet they sell 5 million+ copies. Time=Quality=more sales. Skyrim is coming out 5 years after Oblivion and you know what it will probably be the higest selling game in Bethesda history because they took the time to make it great. They even revamped everything along the way. People will wait for games and if they're great millions will buy it which means more profits for the devs.

[Yrkoon]

Atakuma wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Not that any of this matters. An epic, high quality game can still be made  inspite of limited resources.   Just ask CDprojekt  how they  managed to create Witcher 2  for less than $10 million... a  *fraction* of  DA2's production cost.

You don't even know DA2s production costs.

Obviously more than $10 Million.  They probably spent more than $10 million on the marketing and  advertising  alone.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 25 octobre 2011 - 04:29 .

[jmadsen]

Yrkoon wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Not that any of this matters. An epic, high quality game can still be made  inspite of limited resources.   Just ask CDprojekt  how they  managed to create Witcher 2  for less than $10 million... a  *fraction* of  DA2's production cost.

You don't even know DA2s production costs.

Obviously more than $10 Million.  They probably spent more than $10 million on the marketing and  advertising  alone.

how do you know that? link please.

[Atakuma]

Yrkoon wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Not that any of this matters. An epic, high quality game can still be made  inspite of limited resources.   Just ask CDprojekt  how they  managed to create Witcher 2  for less than $10 million... a  *fraction* of  DA2's production cost.

You don't even know DA2s production costs.

Obviously more than $10 Million.  They probably spent more than $10 million on the marketing and  advertising  alone.

Advertising and marketing are irrelevant when discussing development costs, and you clearly don't know how much was spent on development so you have no basis for comparison.

[FedericoV]

OSUfan12121 wrote...

Look at the GTA series it usually takes about 4 years for a sequel yet they sell 5 million+ copies. Time=Quality=more sales.

Do you know the dev cost of GTA IV? 100 million dollars. If the sales figure you report are right, I would say that sales are not that great if you look at how much money they have invested on the bloathed thing. I mean, it's not the best comparison you could find.

Modifié par FedericoV, 25 octobre 2011 - 06:41 .

[Yrkoon]

  Ok OK, you win.  none of us knows how much the game cost to make.

So lets not peddle double standards.


Rewind time:

aries1001 wrote...

Yes, that may well be so, 4 million+ for DA:O while DA2 only so far has sold 2 around 2 millions.

However, DA2 took about 18 months to make while DA:O took about 5 years to make (from 2004-2009), or 7 if you count pre-production to be about 2 years. This means pre-production was started in 2002, production began in 2004, and it was released in november 2009.

And DA:O did cost a lot more to make than DA2 did, and sold only twice as many copies, while DA2 with a tighther (not so much money) budget sold about half of what DA:O did. And maybe cost half the prize of DA:O.

The point is this:
DA:O did not sell three or four times as many copies as DA2 did - as it, DAO, should have done if it were to be as profitable as DA2. DA:O took 3-4 times as long as DA2 to develop and thus took a lot more resources to make than DA2. (it shows in DA2, I agree here) But the point still stands.

Making a game in 18 months and selling about 2 millions could be (is) more profitable than making a game for about 5½ years and then selling 4 million copies.

LOL  You have no idea how much DA2 cost to make.  Tighter budgets, a lot less resources... You're guessing on both of these. 

Modifié par Yrkoon, 26 octobre 2011 - 01:11 .

[Heimdall]

Melca36 wrote...

RagingCyclone wrote...



THIS!!! these types of crawls are what drew me from FPS to RPG's. Quick/Simple/To the Point was becoming boring for me. I like the ability to stop and look around at what is around me, maybe talk to my companions about their thoughts on where we were.  Games like Half Life and Doom had similar details in the environments, but no time to stop and enjoy the work the devs put into them. That's why I got bored with that genre and loved DAO, KOTOR, even ME1 & 2 give me a chance to stop and look around (yes I loved driving the mako around just looking at the planetscape). DA2's reuse of maps didn't help me with this. The dlc's were much more fun because I could stop and look at the world around me instead of having paratroopers dance on my head. And I know I am not alone in this move from one genre to the other. I am also probably a member of one of the older age groups to post on the forums. But to BW I say there is a market for the gen X'ers if you take the time and do it right. the dlc's show it is possible.

I do think there is a generational divide when it comes to gaming.   I think a great many of the younger set want things handed to them and alot of them dont appreciate the aestheticsof a game. 

I also think the DLCs are were better looking than the actual game although there is a part of the Wounded Coast where you look out towards the seas and its truly gorgeous. 

I have always believed that a sequel should honor the original. DA:2 was a fun game but it did not honor the original. I know alot of the game can be attributed to cost cutting measures but it did seem like they catered to one side of the audience.

Its nice to know they are listening to feedback. The DLCs were great and I will buy the others.

I suspect though the ones who will be complaining the most when DA:3 comes out will be hardcore DA:2 fans.  

You already see it now since they seem to be the most vocal when complaining about the stealth features in MOTA.

Well, it's not as if everyone who disliked the deeproads or the Fade want everything handed to them.  I just really thought they became unbearably monotonous after the second time personally.  Lots of crawling, not enough interesting thigs going on.

[FieryDove]

aries1001 wrote...

Yes, that may well be so, 4 million+ for DA:O while DA2 only so far has sold 2 around 2 millions.

However, DA2 took about 18 months to make while DA:O took about 5 years to make (from 2004-2009), or

And DA:O did cost a lot more to make than DA2 did, and sold only twice as many copies, while DA2 with a tighther (not so much money) budget sold about half of what DA:O did. And maybe cost half the prize of DA:O.

Ok so if DA2 had to create an engine...then?

Let's see if DA3 has a new engine and how long the dev cycle is.

(Maybe we will get Panda's as a new race) 

[Pious_Augustus]

Bottom line Dragon Age 2 failed the developers did what they wanted to do but they have to ask themselves are they going to let ALL THE BAD AND HORRIBLE features of Dragon Age 2 infect DA3?

Gaidor came out as the bad guy for Dragon Age 1's expansion with forcing you to grind in a dungeon and talk to a rock to talk to your followers and with Gaidor and Laidlow they made the worst game Bioware has ever made to date. They should not be allowed to make Dragon Age 3. This is not a personal attack but as someone who refuses to buy another game like this.

Before this mess I have preordered every single Bioware game I could. I have bought games for the PC and for various consoles.  This game was so bad they gave us Mass Effect 2 for free.

Its been months but I am still so outraged!! I have tried, I have really tried. I am purchasing Mass Effect 3, and The Old Republic but after that you as a company have to prove to me your still worth investing in because I was personally told here by a member of your staff if I didn't like you're ideas then I wasn't welcome. Telling people and long time consumers of your product and making the customer seem wrong for voicing their concerns has made you lose customers.

I hope you as a company have learned from this. Again get a new staff for Dragon Age 3!  I can't believe I am going to go without preordering a Bioware game

[devSin]

Yeah, comparing costs is even more stupid than comparing sales (to be fair, you just look stupid when you do it, not more or less stupid than the other stupid people).

Origins created an engine, a game world, and put in place a lot of the process for working with the assets that need to be created to make a game with this engine. It likely also carried costs of absorbing BioWare into the EA chain and having that work more smoothly going forward. And more stuff that only they know, being the people who pay for creating these games for a living.

All of these are costs y'all seem to want to attribute to Origins, but all have direct benefits to DA2. Your "production cost" assessments are wholly ridiculous because the two do not start at the same point (namely, $0).

It might be better to argue about something that actually matters to you as a consumer and player, in any case. Sales and costs don't matter to you; you will never know them, and you will never be consulted as to their impact by anybody who has a right to be concerned with them.

I know that's quite snotty, and I try not to be a jerk, but come on. There are all kinds of things to argue without going back and forth on something you have no business arguing about.

Modifié par devSin, 26 octobre 2011 - 01:57 .

[CuriousArtemis]

So many complaints! Go replay DA:O. Let those of us who enjoyed (and continue to enjoy) DA2 enjoy it in peace.

I replayed DA:O three times. I've replayed DA2 6+ times. You don't see me consistently trashing DA:O. (And just because something is more popular doesn't make it better.) I loved both; clearly I love DA:O (look at my profile pic and you see my cute mage DA:O elf, right?), but I love DA:2 more. Big. Deal.