260 réponses à ce sujet

[AlexXIV]

Stanley Woo wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

So by merging with EA Bioware has turned from artists to businessmen. If this isn't irony then I don't know what this word means.

No. BioWare have always been businessmen. In fact, in my time with the company, I have seen first-hand that one of the ways in which BioWare lasted so long as an independent company was due directly to the business savvy and forward thinking of the company's founders, Ray and Greg. They have always considered ways in which BioWare can survive as a company while still allowing its creators enough freedom to exercise their creativity, and made the decisions they did for the betterment (and survivability) of the company.

In order to survive, artists MUST become businessmen. Without considering the commercial concerns of their art, how will they make enough money to survive long enough to make the one project that everyone considers a true work of art? Stephen King did not write Cujo or Carrie first. Baldur's Gate II was not BioWare's first project. The iPod was not Apple's first piece of hardware. Most Hollywood hopefuls in L.A. work as servers and baristas not because the jobs are inspiration or vehicles for their art, but to make enough money to let them survive until their next project. it is not irony to not starve to death, and there is no shame in an artist being able to pay their rent month after month.

Question is though if making money is the driving factor, or creating art. If you just want to make money you could do anything. Probably making computer games is not the best way to make money, even though probably a not too shabby one. So why make computer games if not for the art? I would guess most of you guys in this business dreamt about doing it since you were little. But I doubt you dreamt of making alot of money with it, but rather what awesome games you would create. Or am I wrong. I mean growing up is part of life, and things change. But I always thought it is better to not change everything. Some things are worth keeping.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Baldur's Gate II was not BioWare's first project.

As I understand it, that honour belongs to the Gastroenterology Patient Simulator.

[tmp7704]

Stanley Woo wrote...

All I'm saying is that it is unreasonable to believe that we don't care / are lazy / are incompetent / don't know anything just because we have chosen to put our resources somewhere different than what you would have chosen.

To be honest, since a system for animation of character's attachments has range of utility so much wider than just bowstrings (from entirely 'new' weapons like flails to even things like mounts) it is puzzling to see you guys decide against implementing it 'because it's not worth it', actually.

And in the long run i'd say it seems this decision is already biting you in the ass -- see the weird workarounds you had to use for Varric's animated crossbow --the extra work it no doubt involved, with the end effect of getting one character with animated weapon in entire game-- which wouldn't be needed if a proper, game-wide system was just put there in the first place.

Modifié par tmp7704, 22 novembre 2011 - 12:31 .

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

Stanley Woo wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

So by merging with EA Bioware has turned from artists to businessmen. If this isn't irony then I don't know what this word means.

No. BioWare have always been businessmen. In fact, in my time with the company, I have seen first-hand that one of the ways in which BioWare lasted so long as an independent company was due directly to the business savvy and forward thinking of the company's founders, Ray and Greg. They have always considered ways in which BioWare can survive as a company while still allowing its creators enough freedom to exercise their creativity, and made the decisions they did for the betterment (and survivability) of the company.

In order to survive, artists MUST become businessmen. Without considering the commercial concerns of their art, how will they make enough money to survive long enough to make the one project that everyone considers a true work of art? Stephen King did not write Cujo or Carrie first. Baldur's Gate II was not BioWare's first project. The iPod was not Apple's first piece of hardware. Most Hollywood hopefuls in L.A. work as servers and baristas not because the jobs are inspiration or vehicles for their art, but to make enough money to let them survive until their next project. it is not irony to not starve to death, and there is no shame in an artist being able to pay their rent month after month.

Jesus christ it's a flippin bowstring man, not multiplayer mode or something(). I'm sure Ray and Greg didn't project critical bankruptcy in 2012 from the addition of a string, something which I can't think of being missing from any other game of the top of my head.

and what tmp said.<3

[Realmzmaster]

AlexXIV wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

So by merging with EA Bioware has turned from artists to businessmen. If this isn't irony then I don't know what this word means.

No. BioWare have always been businessmen. In fact, in my time with the company, I have seen first-hand that one of the ways in which BioWare lasted so long as an independent company was due directly to the business savvy and forward thinking of the company's founders, Ray and Greg. They have always considered ways in which BioWare can survive as a company while still allowing its creators enough freedom to exercise their creativity, and made the decisions they did for the betterment (and survivability) of the company.

In order to survive, artists MUST become businessmen. Without considering the commercial concerns of their art, how will they make enough money to survive long enough to make the one project that everyone considers a true work of art? Stephen King did not write Cujo or Carrie first. Baldur's Gate II was not BioWare's first project. The iPod was not Apple's first piece of hardware. Most Hollywood hopefuls in L.A. work as servers and baristas not because the jobs are inspiration or vehicles for their art, but to make enough money to let them survive until their next project. it is not irony to not starve to death, and there is no shame in an artist being able to pay their rent month after month.

Question is though if making money is the driving factor, or creating art. If you just want to make money you could do anything. Probably making computer games is not the best way to make money, even though probably a not too shabby one. So why make computer games if not for the art? I would guess most of you guys in this business dreamt about doing it since you were little. But I doubt you dreamt of making alot of money with it, but rather what awesome games you would create. Or am I wrong. I mean growing up is part of life, and things change. But I always thought it is better to not change everything. Some things are worth keeping.

Creating art is all well and good, but I am also sure that those developers  and artists may want to marry, have a family, someday retire to enjoy their golden years.

Make no mistake dreams sometimes give way to reality . The reality is that living costs money. Obtaining  dreams along with creating art cost money.

Businesses have to make money to survive. Once you start a business you employ people. The decisions that are made now affect more than just the owners. The owners have a responsbility to those employees. The business must make money to pay those people who have dreams of their own.

People not only create businesses to realize a dream, but also to make money because you cannot eat dreams.  It is neat if you can create art and at the same time make money doing it. Bioware is a company that creates games, but at the end of the day it is still a company (now division) that must make a profit to survive

[TheRealJayDee]

Stanley Woo wrote...

All I'm saying is that it is unreasonable to believe that we don't care / are lazy / are incompetent / don't know anything just because we have chosen to put our resources somewhere different than what you would have chosen.

Well, I just don't think anybody would have complained about having bowstrings. A bow without a string is essentialy like a sword that only consists of the hilt - it's not at all fit to be used in the intended purpose.

The absence of bowstrings didn't bother me that much in DA:O, but in DA2 there were just too many examples of resources being put into things I did not consider neccessary or an improvement, and thus the missing bowstrings seem to become much more prominent. 

I don't think you "don't care / are lazy / are incompetent / don't know anything", but I do think that there were some heavily flawed prioritiy decisions involved in the making of DA2. Just how I see it, and I'm not primarily talking about leaving out bowstrings here.

Modifié par TheRealJayDee, 22 novembre 2011 - 01:21 .

[AlexXIV]

Realmzmaster wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

So by merging with EA Bioware has turned from artists to businessmen. If this isn't irony then I don't know what this word means.

No. BioWare have always been businessmen. In fact, in my time with the company, I have seen first-hand that one of the ways in which BioWare lasted so long as an independent company was due directly to the business savvy and forward thinking of the company's founders, Ray and Greg. They have always considered ways in which BioWare can survive as a company while still allowing its creators enough freedom to exercise their creativity, and made the decisions they did for the betterment (and survivability) of the company.

In order to survive, artists MUST become businessmen. Without considering the commercial concerns of their art, how will they make enough money to survive long enough to make the one project that everyone considers a true work of art? Stephen King did not write Cujo or Carrie first. Baldur's Gate II was not BioWare's first project. The iPod was not Apple's first piece of hardware. Most Hollywood hopefuls in L.A. work as servers and baristas not because the jobs are inspiration or vehicles for their art, but to make enough money to let them survive until their next project. it is not irony to not starve to death, and there is no shame in an artist being able to pay their rent month after month.

Question is though if making money is the driving factor, or creating art. If you just want to make money you could do anything. Probably making computer games is not the best way to make money, even though probably a not too shabby one. So why make computer games if not for the art? I would guess most of you guys in this business dreamt about doing it since you were little. But I doubt you dreamt of making alot of money with it, but rather what awesome games you would create. Or am I wrong. I mean growing up is part of life, and things change. But I always thought it is better to not change everything. Some things are worth keeping.

Creating art is all well and good, but I am also sure that those developers  and artists may want to marry, have a family, someday retire to enjoy their golden years.

Make no mistake dreams sometimes give way to reality . The reality is that living costs money. Obtaining  dreams along with creating art cost money.

Businesses have to make money to survive. Once you start a business you employ people. The decisions that are made now affect more than just the owners. The owners have a responsbility to those employees. The business must make money to pay those people who have dreams of their own.

People not only create businesses to realize a dream, but also to make money because you cannot eat dreams.  It is neat if you can create art and at the same time make money doing it. Bioware is a company that creates games, but at the end of the day it is still a company (now division) that must make a profit to survive

When did I ever say it is forbidden to make money? It is not the question. The thing is just there is a point where you decide to make 'more money' in favor of ... doing what you originally wanted to do. You know, more money is not always better. There is only so much money you can spend on useful things, the rest is wasted.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 22 novembre 2011 - 01:25 .

[Realmzmaster]

AlexXIV wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

So by merging with EA Bioware has turned from artists to businessmen. If this isn't irony then I don't know what this word means.

No. BioWare have always been businessmen. In fact, in my time with the company, I have seen first-hand that one of the ways in which BioWare lasted so long as an independent company was due directly to the business savvy and forward thinking of the company's founders, Ray and Greg. They have always considered ways in which BioWare can survive as a company while still allowing its creators enough freedom to exercise their creativity, and made the decisions they did for the betterment (and survivability) of the company.

In order to survive, artists MUST become businessmen. Without considering the commercial concerns of their art, how will they make enough money to survive long enough to make the one project that everyone considers a true work of art? Stephen King did not write Cujo or Carrie first. Baldur's Gate II was not BioWare's first project. The iPod was not Apple's first piece of hardware. Most Hollywood hopefuls in L.A. work as servers and baristas not because the jobs are inspiration or vehicles for their art, but to make enough money to let them survive until their next project. it is not irony to not starve to death, and there is no shame in an artist being able to pay their rent month after month.

Question is though if making money is the driving factor, or creating art. If you just want to make money you could do anything. Probably making computer games is not the best way to make money, even though probably a not too shabby one. So why make computer games if not for the art? I would guess most of you guys in this business dreamt about doing it since you were little. But I doubt you dreamt of making alot of money with it, but rather what awesome games you would create. Or am I wrong. I mean growing up is part of life, and things change. But I always thought it is better to not change everything. Some things are worth keeping.

Creating art is all well and good, but I am also sure that those developers  and artists may want to marry, have a family, someday retire to enjoy their golden years.

Make no mistake dreams sometimes give way to reality . The reality is that living costs money. Obtaining  dreams along with creating art cost money.

Businesses have to make money to survive. Once you start a business you employ people. The decisions that are made now affect more than just the owners. The owners have a responsbility to those employees. The business must make money to pay those people who have dreams of their own.

People not only create businesses to realize a dream, but also to make money because you cannot eat dreams.  It is neat if you can create art and at the same time make money doing it. Bioware is a company that creates games, but at the end of the day it is still a company (now division) that must make a profit to survive

When did I ever say it is forbidden to make money? It is not the question. The thing is just there is a point where you decide to make 'more money' in favor of ... doing what you originally wanted to do. You know, more money is not always better. There is only so much money you can spend on useful things, the rest is wasted.

No it is not wasted.  In your eyes is maybe a waste. In that person's eyes I made all this money I can now enjoy it or give away if I so desire. More money allows the person to fulfill more dreams. Creating art may be only one of the dreams one wishes to accomplish. Money can be used to achieve those other dreams.  As you said time can change what is important. Creating art may be the most important dream at one time. Other dreams later on may start to take prominence. Not that creating art is no longer important it is no longer of primary importance.

When you are running a businesses and other people depend on your decisions that becomes prominent. Now if you can continue to create art and make money that is good. If the company does not survive all those people can no longer help you create the art.

[devSin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

As I understand it, that honour belongs to the Gastroenterology Patient Simulator.

It's funny because they were able to actually reuse a lot of its art assets for the original Baldur's Gate. In case you were wondering why some of those textures looked like ass... it's because they were really were ass!

OH NO HE DITTINT.

[Stanley Woo]

TheRealJayDee wrote...
Well, I just don't think anybody would have complained about having bowstrings. A bow without a string is essentialy like a sword that only consists of the hilt - it's not at all fit to be used in the intended purpose.

That's the entire thrust of the argument from "my side": bowstring are "nice to have" features, even "neat detail" features, but in my opinion, they are not "make or break an entire game" features.

The absence of bowstrings didn't bother me that much in DA:O, but in DA2 there were just too many examples of resources being put into things I did not consider neccessary or an improvement, and thus the missing bowstrings seem to become much more prominent. 

That is an entirely fair point, and in some ways I agree with you completely.

I don't think you "don't care / are lazy / are incompetent / don't know anything", but I do think that there were some heavily flawed prioritiy decisions involved in the making of DA2. Just how I see it, and I'm not primarily talking about leaving out bowstrings here.

Again, a very fair point and not one where I wil disagree with you. Where we will disagree is on precisely which "priority decisions" were flawed, which is not on-topic here and can be discussed in other threads. Thank you for your comments.

[Stanley Woo]

devSin wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

As I understand it, that honour belongs to the Gastroenterology Patient Simulator.

It's funny because they were able to actually reuse a lot of its art assets for the original Baldur's Gate. In case you were wondering why some of those textures looked like ass... it's because they were really were ass!

OH NO HE DITTINT.

You are so fired, devSin!

[FieryDove]

Stanley Woo wrote...

That's not always possible. While EA has very little to do with the actual development side of things, they are responsible for advertising and manufacturing, which involves cores of people in a dozen or so departments in a handful of studios all around the world. And all these people need to ramp up and take time to do their jobs. "Allotting more time" means dates slip, and that means people, departments, maybe even entire offices have to be rescheduled. In an organization as big as Electronic Arts, a department that sits idle or is double-booked can lose the company millions of dollars. And no one wants that.

In game development, decisions about release dates and "go/no go" decisions and such are among the most important decisions a company can make, and they are never made lightly. they can't be. Potentially millions of dollars are at stake.

Cutting an RPG's development time in half is bad. EA's doesn't know this since they don't really have anyone but you folk that do rpg's so they follow the sports/sims expansion model and push something out quick. It doesn't work as we saw.

What worries me is the higher ups at BW agreed to it. You guys need a robust budget and a good or at least decent time to develop an rpg. You apparently got neither and it will likey continue as ea goes by performance/mass quanties sold no matter the quality. (Sims pet expansion what a rushed buggy mess). blarg

Before anyone pipes in...we can't possibly know develpment time was cut/rushed I say...bananas. The signs where everywhere to anyone who could *read* not to mention the very first notice was from CP himself when announcing the early end of dao support/dlc due to "DA2 coming together better/faster than expected!"

Bowstrings don't bother me really. There were many other things I would have improved (Or not) if it were my call than bowstrings. Thankfully it's not my call because the next da game would probable come out 2019 and well...EA would be steamed the entire time and throw bananas at my house.

[Stanley Woo]

FieryDove wrote...
Cutting an RPG's development time in half is bad. EA's doesn't know this since they don't really have anyone but you folk that do rpg's so they follow the sports/sims expansion model and push something out quick. It doesn't work as we saw.

That's not how the decision-making process went, on either company's part, but more that I can not say. none of it was done out of malice, incompetence, apathy, or negligence.

[tmp7704]

Stanley Woo wrote...

That's the entire thrust of the argument from "my side": bowstring are "nice to have" features, even "neat detail" features, but in my opinion, they are not "make or break an entire game" features.

That can be said about pretty much any single aspect of the game that's beyond the broad strokes of "should have graphics, sound, gameplay and UI".

[FieryDove]

Stanley Woo wrote...

That's not how the decision-making process went, on either company's part, but more that I can not say. none of it was done out of malice, incompetence, apathy, or negligence.

You folk at Bioware are not any of those things.

At least I can speak my mind here without being locked out of my games permanently, or unable to connect to play (SP not MP) due to origin/server issues.

I won't say anything more because once I start I could go on for pages. ugh

[AlexXIV]

Stanley Woo wrote...

FieryDove wrote...
Cutting an RPG's development time in half is bad. EA's doesn't know this since they don't really have anyone but you folk that do rpg's so they follow the sports/sims expansion model and push something out quick. It doesn't work as we saw.

That's not how the decision-making process went, on either company's part, but more that I can not say. none of it was done out of malice, incompetence, apathy, or negligence.

I don't know how the financial part works but I wager it was to be released in March because ME3 was to be right before x-mas. Just that ME3 is now pushed back to March (rightly so) which could have made a great November/December release for a much better and much more popular DA2. Maybe it was not malice, incompetence, apathy or negligence, but it was a wrong call. But I have yet to see someone of Bioware admit that. And I am not even going to ask why ME3 was pushed back then, if all that you have said is true and it is so expensive. I can imagine it was because of DA2 and they didn't want to make the same mistake again, which at least means that a good thing came from it. Meaning that at least ME3 will meet my expectations.

[FieryDove]

AlexXIV wrote...

And I am not even going to ask why ME3 was pushed back then, if all that you have said is true and it is so expensive. I can imagine it was because of DA2 and they didn't want to make the same mistake again, which at least means that a good thing came from it. Meaning that at least ME3 will meet my expectations.

ME3 has co-op and kinect...sp?

That alone would require more time/resources and refinement.

[AlexXIV]

FieryDove wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

And I am not even going to ask why ME3 was pushed back then, if all that you have said is true and it is so expensive. I can imagine it was because of DA2 and they didn't want to make the same mistake again, which at least means that a good thing came from it. Meaning that at least ME3 will meet my expectations.

ME3 has co-op and kinect...sp?

That alone would require more time/resources and refinement.

I don't know, and I don't care either. I am a typical single player and won't use the co-op anyway. But I guess not all devs will work on it, so there is enough time for others to polish single player content.

[TwistedComplex]

Stanley Woo wrote...


In order to survive, artists MUST become businessmen. 

Not to the extent that Bioware has become.

Bethesda didn't compromise when it came to Skyrim. DICE didn't compromise when it came to BF3.

Since when did Bioware start giving up the little details, the things that make games immersive, and say "Well we can't have bowstrings because that would mean we can't have hair physics!!!"

I refuse to believe that both Bioware and EA believed that you could create a worthy sequal to DA:O with the time they were given.

So the next time Bioware makes a game more for profit than passion, give us a heads up. Thanks

[Andraste_Reborn]

It bemuses me that so many people are connecting the lack of bowstrings to DA2 being rushed, when DAO took 5+ years (most of which predate BioWare merging with the Evol EA) to make and didn't have them either.

[Stanley Woo]

TwistedComplex wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

In order to survive, artists MUST become businessmen. 

Not to the extent that Bioware has become.

Bethesda didn't compromise when it came to Skyrim. DICE didn't compromise when it came to BF3.

Since when did Bioware start giving up the little details, the things that make games immersive, and say "Well we can't have bowstrings because that would mean we can't have hair physics!!!"

ALL game companies compromise on some thing or another. Just because you don't see them or know what they are does not mean it didn't happen. Game development is all about doing the best with the resources you have at hand. For Bethesda, one of the side effects of having such an open world in their games has always been that they cannot account for every little thing that players do, so it is possible for NPCs and plots to behave in ways they did not intend. That is the "compromise" Bethesda makes. it only becomes "TEH WORST THING EVAR" when you disagree with it on the internet.

I refuse to believe that both Bioware and EA believed that you could create a worthy sequal to DA:O with the time they were given.

Then we shall have to agree to disagree.

So the next time Bioware makes a game more for profit than passion, give us a heads up. Thanks

Digs like that are somewhat rude and completely unnecesary for this conversation. thank you for your comments, and good day.

[thats1evildude]

You changed, man. It used to be about the music video games.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 23 novembre 2011 - 12:58 .

[AlexXIV]

thats1evildude wrote...

You changed, man. It used to be about the music video games.

It's always been about girls I tell ya.

[XEternalXDreamsX]

Double post?

Modifié par XEternalXDreamsX, 23 novembre 2011 - 01:16 .

[XEternalXDreamsX]

XEternalXDreamsX wrote...

Monica83 wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

TwistedComplex wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

Indeed. Animated weapons have been requested since DAO as well. I believe the thinking is that weapon animation just wasn't worth the time and effort this time around.

Yeah, god forbid the art and animation team put effort into their games.

Just because they are not doing the thing YOU want them to, does not mean they are not working very hard and very creatively on what does appear in the game. We simply do not have time to implement every individual player's preferred visuals.

you know bow needs two things to work properly... arrows and bowstrings..here we are not talking of one feature we are talking of something that must be in a weapon to work and don't develop it its just lazyness and lack of effort.. The witcher 2.. Skyrim and many other rpg have bowstring and since i don't think the bioware team don't have the time to implement a bowstring..

Its useless justify this lack with.. hey we simple don't had the time when the team just shovel out a quick sequel total different from the first one.. I suggest you bioware team this:

Next time try to make a sequel improving things and not just transform a saga in a middle of a franchise i assure you will find the time to implement a basilar thing like a bowstring.. you know even minecraft have bowstrings..

So please don't come out with answers like that next time its just inappropriate

I agree. Someone asking for a bowstring graphic on their bow isn't too much to ask of the company. It's not ground breaking to myself though. The animation of pulling an arrow from the quiver and pulling the arrow to launch was implemented in DA:O so all they had to do was have a bowstring on the bow when equipped, and when the attack animation was in progess, let the string be pulled back alittle. I'm not saying that I need a bowstring but why not? When comparing a bowstring to all new dungeons, characters, ect.. that's way off into another field/subject and NOT the same thing. Things like that need alot more time compared to a bowstring. I have been given a Digital Download (legal, they gave me the money to buy it off Xbox LIVE) for my birthday. I have played it alot and I have no qualms with anything so far. Thanks Bioware! ..but man, when I heard about the overhaul in DA2 (I forgot, no spoilers.).. I might just drop out the series when I finish DA:O. I was even going to rebuy DA:O by getting DA Ultimate Edition (Awakening, and DLC all included) to fully enjoy the game then get DA2 but DA2 sounds like a let-down even though I haven't even finished the greatness of DA:O. So sad.. But come on, why no bowstring? Lol. I saw people trippin' because someone asked about a bowstring like they were asking for a bail-out. Businessmen can be successful and stay in business at the cost of bowstrings! It's magick.

Edit - Btw, that's like romances in Dragon Age. I have a girlfriend so my needs are met IRL so I don't need a romance in-game so that time spent could have been fleshing the NPCs out more or adding whole new quests but some people need the digital booty (it's an addiction. lol I still do it if it's in-game to somewhat agree about it), now that could be compared to larger projects. <3 Luv the digital butay.