Ce sujet est fermé
google_calasade wrote...
From what I read, Knowles relegated himself to debugging and testing because higher-ups wanted to take the Dragon Age series into a direction that Laidlaw was comfortable with and Knowles was not. Knowles shortly thereafter decided to leave.
Modifié par Aaleel, 05 janvier 2012 - 03:34 .
google_calasade wrote...
Realmzmaster wrote...
You cannot extrapolate what goes on the forum to the general Dragon Age fanbase, The sample size is too small. Also a lot of the people on the social networks are the same people on these forums. You will find me on many sites if you know my different aliases. So going to Twitter or Facebook means you are seeing the same people plus maybe a few extras. So it is no wonder that the opinions there are just as polarized.
So, basically, what you're saying is that the uprising by customers here, Facebook, Twitter, etc. is an anomaly that had no effect on DA 2's success or failure and that the general populace that bought the game and does not participate in forums and social sites feels completely different? That all of us who do actively participate online are in a vacuum?
Okay...
When you're done with those rose-colored glasses, I would like to borrow them.
Zanallen wrote...
Technically, DAO was announced before Jade Empire was released. So you can see the change in direction. DAO really was an older style Bioware game that was held back in development for so long that it came out after Bioware had changed focus.
Zanallen wrote...
eyesofastorm wrote...
The point, I think in a nutshell, is that Bioware sold out. I personally believe that they were a company that achieved greatness (more than once) by taking the road less traveled. The mistake I think they made (a common one it seems) is that, having tasted greatness, they wanted more greatness and began changing the things about themselves that made them great in the first place. They commericalized basically. And I know everyone will come in and say, "It's not a sin to want to be succesful/make money/have a bigger audience." I agree with that sentiment. But I do not believe that one *must* take the road "more traveled" to do so. In fact, I think they will have hurt themselves in the long term by doing so and that they could have achieved even greater... greatness by continuing down that less traveled road and doing it better than anyone else ever had. That's my piece. That's what I take from that short clip. I'm sorry if you cannot see that point, but I think you should at least try even if you don't agree with the assessment.
Bioware didn't sell out. Bioware failed as a company and was bought out. Bioware's financial decisions lead to it being purchased by EA.
MerinTB wrote...
Oh, I know. I've been waiting for Dragon Age since they said "boo" which was, what, shortly after KotOR? I can't remember exactly - at times it feels like I was waiting for Dragon Age since NWN was released and I was disappointed.
It was mostly a joke at poor JE's expense.
You won't believe if I tell you some Biodromes argued "majority of fans responding poorly" as "vocal minority" Some people argued Brent Knowless was not the only person responsible for DAO's development, Mike Laidlaw also involved. I don't want to give this people such argument anymore. We already "exchanged opinions" on that matter 9 months ago.PsychoWARD23 wrote...
Oh really? Besides having your lead director of your highest selling game ever leave and complain about the direction, and the majority of fans responding very poorly to it.Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
And Co-founder Ray Muzyka acknowledge the lost of customers in public is not a good sign for successful business.
Realmzmaster wrote...
Unless you have surveyed at least 5 to 10% % of those who bought DA you cannot extrapolate the results with any significance.
Aaleel wrote...
google_calasade wrote...
From what I read, Knowles relegated himself to debugging and testing because higher-ups wanted to take the Dragon Age series into a direction that Laidlaw was comfortable with and Knowles was not. Knowles shortly thereafter decided to leave.
I think I remember him saying that they were trying to make DA2 an RPG along the lines of ME, and that wasn't the type of RPG he played.
eyesofastorm wrote...
It was hardly a hostile takeover. I believe they sold themselves to EA for a sum of more than 3/4 of a billion dollars IIRC and that while they desired the funding of a large studio to tide them over in the lean times, they had not "failed" at that point. So, in that sense, they quite literally sold out. Though I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. There was a great deal made at the time of the fact that Bioware would continue being Bioware and that they would continue to operate with creative autonomy. One may believe that at one's own peril. Anyway, I guess you are saying that the Bioware I think of as a "great traveler of the road less traveled" no longer exists and I am foolish to believe that it still does. Did I get that right?
eyesofastorm wrote...
Zanallen wrote...
eyesofastorm wrote...
The point, I think in a nutshell, is that Bioware sold out. I personally believe that they were a company that achieved greatness (more than once) by taking the road less traveled. The mistake I think they made (a common one it seems) is that, having tasted greatness, they wanted more greatness and began changing the things about themselves that made them great in the first place. They commericalized basically. And I know everyone will come in and say, "It's not a sin to want to be succesful/make money/have a bigger audience." I agree with that sentiment. But I do not believe that one *must* take the road "more traveled" to do so. In fact, I think they will have hurt themselves in the long term by doing so and that they could have achieved even greater... greatness by continuing down that less traveled road and doing it better than anyone else ever had. That's my piece. That's what I take from that short clip. I'm sorry if you cannot see that point, but I think you should at least try even if you don't agree with the assessment.
Bioware didn't sell out. Bioware failed as a company and was bought out. Bioware's financial decisions lead to it being purchased by EA.
It was hardly a hostile takeover. I believe they sold themselves to EA for a sum of more than 3/4 of a billion dollars IIRC and that while they desired the funding of a large studio to tide them over in the lean times, they had not "failed" at that point. So, in that sense, they quite literally sold out. Though I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. There was a great deal made at the time of the fact that Bioware would continue being Bioware and that they would continue to operate with creative autonomy. One may believe that at one's own peril. Anyway, I guess you are saying that the Bioware I think of as a "great traveler of the road less traveled" no longer exists and I am foolish to believe that it still does. Did I get that right?
Modifié par google_calasade, 05 janvier 2012 - 03:49 .
Zanallen wrote...
eyesofastorm wrote...
It was hardly a hostile takeover. I believe they sold themselves to EA for a sum of more than 3/4 of a billion dollars IIRC and that while they desired the funding of a large studio to tide them over in the lean times, they had not "failed" at that point. So, in that sense, they quite literally sold out. Though I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. There was a great deal made at the time of the fact that Bioware would continue being Bioware and that they would continue to operate with creative autonomy. One may believe that at one's own peril. Anyway, I guess you are saying that the Bioware I think of as a "great traveler of the road less traveled" no longer exists and I am foolish to believe that it still does. Did I get that right?
Did I say it was a hostile take over? No. Bioware made poor business decisions. They weren't thinking enough about the commercial side of game development and needed the money that EA could provide. Otherwise, they may well have gone under like so many RPG studios have done.
eyesofastorm wrote...
Realmzmaster wrote...
Unless you have surveyed at least 5 to 10% % of those who bought DA you cannot extrapolate the results with any significance.
I think the size of the sample is less important than the randomness and I won't disagree that there is a homogenous group that comes here to post. How would I classify that group? I would classify it as gamers sufficiently passionate about Bioware's games to spend time posting about them online. So is it a good thing that a significant portion of the people who passionately love your games strongly dislike the latest one? Probably not. Can you extrapolate anything useful from the feelings of the passionate fans and apply it to the gamers that are just kind of "meh" about them? I can't say as I'm not a statistician. However, I would not want to ****** off the people that love my product the most so that I had to live by the whims of the people that are kind of "meh" about my product.
google_calasade wrote...
I cannot speak for what he thinks, but that would be my opinion, that the Bioware of old no longer exists. Corporations are corporations and creative autonomy does not truly exist when someone else is footing the bill. My guess would be that whole creative autonomy thing was spin to help mitigate the automatic backlash that happened when EA purchased Bioware given EA's handling of previous companies they subsequently ran into the ground (Westwood Studios, for instance).
eyesofastorm wrote...
Zanallen wrote...
eyesofastorm wrote...
The point, I think in a nutshell, is that Bioware sold out. I personally believe that they were a company that achieved greatness (more than once) by taking the road less traveled. The mistake I think they made (a common one it seems) is that, having tasted greatness, they wanted more greatness and began changing the things about themselves that made them great in the first place. They commericalized basically. And I know everyone will come in and say, "It's not a sin to want to be succesful/make money/have a bigger audience." I agree with that sentiment. But I do not believe that one *must* take the road "more traveled" to do so. In fact, I think they will have hurt themselves in the long term by doing so and that they could have achieved even greater... greatness by continuing down that less traveled road and doing it better than anyone else ever had. That's my piece. That's what I take from that short clip. I'm sorry if you cannot see that point, but I think you should at least try even if you don't agree with the assessment.
Bioware didn't sell out. Bioware failed as a company and was bought out. Bioware's financial decisions lead to it being purchased by EA.
It was hardly a hostile takeover. I believe they sold themselves to EA for a sum of more than 3/4 of a billion dollars IIRC and that while they desired the funding of a large studio to tide them over in the lean times, they had not "failed" at that point. So, in that sense, they quite literally sold out. Though I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. There was a great deal made at the time of the fact that Bioware would continue being Bioware and that they would continue to operate with creative autonomy. One may believe that at one's own peril. Anyway, I guess you are saying that the Bioware I think of as a "great traveler of the road less traveled" no longer exists and I am foolish to believe that it still does. Did I get that right?
Zanallen wrote...
Bioware hasn't been the company of BG since before EA took over. Just looks at their progression of games (Remember that DAO is a throw back that was started before Jade Empire was released). Each game they have made goes further and further from Baldur's Gate and its like. Personally, I don't think Bioware has ever been the company that people claim it was.
Modifié par google_calasade, 05 janvier 2012 - 04:07 .
Realmzmaster wrote...
Bioware was in financial trouble. Elevation Partners (Venture Capitalist) infused cash into Bioware (which was still losing money which is one reason why DAO was delayed) along with Pandemic Studios (which also was losing money). The two studios formed a partnership under the name VG Holding with Elevation Partners holding a large interest. EA came to Elevation Partners with an offer they could not refuse about 850 million dollars.
The good doctors and company came along to EA. EA bought VG Holding. Pandemic was still losing money and EA shut it down. The good doctors were no longer in position to say no. The majority interest of the company was in other hands. The good doctors did not get most of that money. The good doctors sought help to keep afloat otherwise DAO may never have seen the light of day.
google_calasade wrote...
eyesofastorm wrote...
Realmzmaster wrote...
Unless you have surveyed at least 5 to 10% % of those who bought DA you cannot extrapolate the results with any significance.
I think the size of the sample is less important than the randomness and I won't disagree that there is a homogenous group that comes here to post. How would I classify that group? I would classify it as gamers sufficiently passionate about Bioware's games to spend time posting about them online. So is it a good thing that a significant portion of the people who passionately love your games strongly dislike the latest one? Probably not. Can you extrapolate anything useful from the feelings of the passionate fans and apply it to the gamers that are just kind of "meh" about them? I can't say as I'm not a statistician. However, I would not want to ****** off the people that love my product the most so that I had to live by the whims of the people that are kind of "meh" about my product.
Bingo. You said that much better than I did. Thank you!
Realmzmaster wrote...
google_calasade wrote...
eyesofastorm wrote...
Realmzmaster wrote...
Unless you have surveyed at least 5 to 10% % of those who bought DA you cannot extrapolate the results with any significance.
I think the size of the sample is less important than the randomness and I won't disagree that there is a homogenous group that comes here to post. How would I classify that group? I would classify it as gamers sufficiently passionate about Bioware's games to spend time posting about them online. So is it a good thing that a significant portion of the people who passionately love your games strongly dislike the latest one? Probably not. Can you extrapolate anything useful from the feelings of the passionate fans and apply it to the gamers that are just kind of "meh" about them? I can't say as I'm not a statistician. However, I would not want to ****** off the people that love my product the most so that I had to live by the whims of the people that are kind of "meh" about my product.
Bingo. You said that much better than I did. Thank you!
So Bioware should just say goodbye to those who like DA2? Those gamers are just as adamant in their love for DA2. So Bioware should just ****** them off even if they represent a significant percentage of those on the forum. The percentage may not be as large as the lovers of DAO, but it is not a number that can be ignored.
Here's my thing... it seems like people that hate DA2 tend to love DA:O. It seems that people that love DA2 tend to at least like DA:O. I could be wrong about that. I *think* that has happened at least once before.
Modifié par eyesofastorm, 05 janvier 2012 - 04:09 .
google_calasade wrote...
Zanallen wrote...
Bioware hasn't been the company of BG since before EA took over. Just looks at their progression of games (Remember that DAO is a throw back that was started before Jade Empire was released). Each game they have made goes further and further from Baldur's Gate and its like. Personally, I don't think Bioware has ever been the company that people claim it was.
Bioware had misteps after BG 2, but IMO, they were once the company people claim it was regarding respectability, right up there with the hallowed reputation of Black Isle Studios, who are legends and should be.
eyesofastorm wrote...
I would say that all of Bioware's game up to ME2 were VERY original. Not all of them were fantastic in every way. NWN wasn't my bag, but I appreciate what it did in terms of approximating a tabletop RPG in the digital world. JE is very one of a kind as well. I didn't like the gameplay that much, but the setting and story were great. ME1 was also pretty one of a kind. ME2 was where they started homogenizing.
If you look at Brent Knowless's comment:Zanallen wrote...
google_calasade wrote...
I cannot speak for what he thinks, but that would be my opinion, that the Bioware of old no longer exists. Corporations are corporations and creative autonomy does not truly exist when someone else is footing the bill. My guess would be that whole creative autonomy thing was spin to help mitigate the automatic backlash that happened when EA purchased Bioware given EA's handling of previous companies they subsequently ran into the ground (Westwood Studios, for instance).
Bioware hasn't been the company of BG since before EA took over. Just looks at their progression of games (Remember that DAO is a throw back that was started before Jade Empire was released). Each game they have made goes further and further from Baldur's Gate and its like. Personally, I don't think Bioware has ever been the company that people claim it was.
Yep. It does sound the old BioWare that I've known.I knew that I wasn't going to be satisfied with what Dragon Age 2 would be. Party control/tactical combat are huge factors in my enjoyment of a role-playing game as is adopting the role of the hero (i.e., customizing my character)
Morroian wrote...
eyesofastorm wrote...
I would say that all of Bioware's game up to ME2 were VERY original. Not all of them were fantastic in every way. NWN wasn't my bag, but I appreciate what it did in terms of approximating a tabletop RPG in the digital world. JE is very one of a kind as well. I didn't like the gameplay that much, but the setting and story were great. ME1 was also pretty one of a kind. ME2 was where they started homogenizing.
ME1 was the continuation of what they were doing with Kotor.
Retour en haut