171 réponses à ce sujet

[eyesofastorm]

google_calasade wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

Just want to apologize if I offended anyone. We had a good convo here and it is my nature to be a Dick. Just wanted to emphasize that I am a Dick with a sense of humor and I was having a laugh and maybe that didn't translate well. Here's hoping DA3 fulfills all of our fantasies... err... most of them.

Ooh, yeah, Morrigan, you sexy minx, come here...

Oops, I've revealed too much, it seems.

Huh, Leliana snuck in there as well.

I am eyesofastorm and I support a Morrigan/Leliana menage.  

[migang]

Sometimes, companies promote instead of fire, to keep employer's morale.

/tinfoilhat

[Morroian]

migang wrote...

Mike Laidlaw left the lead on DA3?

That means no more "Awesome" button?

David Silverman coined that phrase.

[Realmzmaster]

migang wrote...

Sometimes, companies promote instead of fire, to keep employer's morale.

/tinfoilhat

He was promoted to Creative Director of the DA series which makes him the lead designer's direct superior.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 05 janvier 2012 - 05:09 .

[DreamwareStudio]

eyesofastorm wrote...

google_calasade wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

Just want to apologize if I offended anyone. We had a good convo here and it is my nature to be a Dick. Just wanted to emphasize that I am a Dick with a sense of humor and I was having a laugh and maybe that didn't translate well. Here's hoping DA3 fulfills all of our fantasies... err... most of them.

Ooh, yeah, Morrigan, you sexy minx, come here...

Oops, I've revealed too much, it seems.

Huh, Leliana snuck in there as well.

I am eyesofastorm and I support a Morrigan/Leliana menage.  

Hah, that's funny!

[migang]

Realmzmaster wrote...

migang wrote...

Sometimes, companies promote instead of fire, to keep employer's morale.

/tinfoilhat

He was promoted to Creative Director of the DA series which makes him the lead designer's direct superior.

Well his influence on the upcoming title is yet to been seen, but making a rough comparison with the Movie industry, he's now the "producer" of the series, while the lead designer is the "director". It has influence, but a director of a movie makes the difference.

Opinion's though.

But since i don't work and i don't know the working dinamics in Bioware, i can only hope that DA3 will be a title worth of the standarts we used to get by Bioware. 


PS.: Hey devs, i want my warden back!

[Realmzmaster]

migang wrote...

Mike Laidlaw left the lead on DA3?

That means no more "Awesome" button?

Nice!

Mike Laidlaw had nothing to do with the Awesome button phrase. That came from marketing.

[Asch Lavigne]

If they have a new lead developer for DA3 then it'll be nothing like 2 or Origins. Its like in a movie franchise (like Harry Potter for example) where each movie has a different director and each one decides what's important, then the next guy taking over decides to say "no, I think this other thing you didn't do is important and I don't like what you did so out it goes."

Despite the differences between the ME games at least Casey Hudson was in charge the whole time, unless I'm mistaken. If Laidlaw is in charge again then DA3 will be probably similar to 2. If they want a game like Origins they should put whoever was in charge then in charge of DA3. And if it was Laidlaw who was in charge of both games then he is schizophrenic or something. I really want the "mix between Origins and DA2" to work out. I'll give DA3 a chance to see if the team has learned from the mistakes of DA2 regardless of who is in charge.

[Realmzmaster]

Asch Lavigne wrote...

If they have a new lead developer for DA3 then it'll be nothing like 2 or Origins. Its like in a movie franchise (like Harry Potter for example) where each movie has a different director and each one decides what's important, then the next guy taking over decides to say "no, I think this other thing you didn't do is important and I don't like what you did so out it goes."

Despite the differences between the ME games at least Casey Hudson was in charge the whole time, unless I'm mistaken. If Laidlaw is in charge again then DA3 will be probably similar to 2. If they want a game like Origins they should put whoever was in charge then in charge of DA3. And if it was Laidlaw who was in charge of both games then he is schizophrenic or something. I really want the "mix between Origins and DA2" to work out. I'll give DA3 a chance to see if the team has learned from the mistakes of DA2 regardless of who is in charge.

Brent Knowles was Lead designer on DAO. He left Bioware to pursue his novels and other projects. He had some creative differences with his superiors also.  So he will not be back.

[Il Divo]

Morroian wrote...

IMHO Kotor was the first sign of Bioware going in a more commercial direction. Like Zanallen said I don't think Bioware ever were the company some think they were.

Heck even BG and BG2 were more commercial than rpgs had been before given they popularised the real time approach over the turn based approach. 

With the sheer diversity of games on their record, Bioware never struck me as a company that wanted to be pigeon-holed into any narrow portion of the RPG genre. Just looking at what they set out to do with Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, and Mass Effect I think is a demonstration of how diverse their interests are. It's just that, with DA2, it's the first time they didn't quite make it all the way in providing a satisfying experience (imo).

[Asch Lavigne]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Asch Lavigne wrote...

If they have a new lead developer for DA3 then it'll be nothing like 2 or Origins. Its like in a movie franchise (like Harry Potter for example) where each movie has a different director and each one decides what's important, then the next guy taking over decides to say "no, I think this other thing you didn't do is important and I don't like what you did so out it goes."

Despite the differences between the ME games at least Casey Hudson was in charge the whole time, unless I'm mistaken. If Laidlaw is in charge again then DA3 will be probably similar to 2. If they want a game like Origins they should put whoever was in charge then in charge of DA3. And if it was Laidlaw who was in charge of both games then he is schizophrenic or something. I really want the "mix between Origins and DA2" to work out. I'll give DA3 a chance to see if the team has learned from the mistakes of DA2 regardless of who is in charge.

Brent Knowles was Lead designer on DAO. He left Bioware to pursue his novels and other projects. He had some creative differences with his superiors also.  So he will not be back.

I see. Such a shame.

[Demx]

After finding out that DA2 wasn't that great, people looked for an escape goat to blame. Mike, whether he fully deserves all the blame, fulfilled that role. The person to take over as lead designer won't face as much as Mike faced, because Mike is still working on the IP and now has a higher position in the project.

This stigma will probably continue to last until he has been on a team that has created several successful games in the eyes of those playing the games. I am curious to see how much blame Mike will get if Dawn of the Seeker sucks, he is the executive producer of the film along with Mark Darrah.

In the end it probably doesn't matter who the lead designer is on the game.

Modifié par Siradix, 05 janvier 2012 - 06:08 .

[UrkOfGreyhawk]

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.

What planet were you on when this went down?

Since you clearly don't have a clue what the hell you're talking about here's a quick history lesson for you...

Bio's purchase by EA had nothing to do with being a failure. Quite the opposite, actually. EA bought Bio because it was the best RPG dev on the friggen' planet. They have a history of buying up succesful game studios.

Before Bio was bought by EA it SOLD OUT to a holding company for a big fat sack of cash. While all it's games made money, having Atari as a publisher meant money was tight, but since Atari held the license for the Forgotten Realms IP they weren't exactly in a position to walk away. It was them and another studio that formed a holding company called VG. Pandemic was it? I forget. Anyway all kinds of promises were made. No creative interference etc. And these promises were kept. Right up until the holding company sold out to EA.

Just to be clear... EA bought Bio even though it was tied to another studio (Pandemic?), a company that WAS failing at the time.

In a very real sense Bio was a victim of it's own success.

For the record it doesn't matter who's on the EA team for DA3. I won't be buying it. To paraphrase the sentiment of a very wise wise man, and one of the best studio devs that ever walked the face of the planet, I don't like the direction this new EA/Bio hybrid is taking. EA also has an unfortunate history of squeezing the life out of every studio they buy, and Bio is clearly no exception to this tradition. While I will continue to enjoy their legacy titles I won't be spending any more of my hard earned money on any future releases.

Modifié par UrkOfGreyhawk, 05 janvier 2012 - 08:55 .

[DiebytheSword]

I am willing to give the new lead, and Mike Laidlaw, and Dragon Age a third spin provided only that they take their time and develop this one with the time it needs, not the time they need to turn it around in.

I fault most of my dislikes with DA2 on that alone; it was clearly rushed.

There were design issues that compounded it, like weakened player agency and near spiteful replacement of our protagonist with Ser Awsomesauce Hawk, the most important person to ever have tons of stuff happen around him/her that he/she didn't really affect.

[Realmzmaster]

UrkOfGreyhawk 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.

What planet were you on when this went down?

Since you clearly don't have a clue what the hell you're talking about here's a quick history lesson for you...

Bio's purchase by EA had nothing to do with being a failure. Quite the opposite, actually. EA bought Bio because it was the best RPG dev on the friggen' planet. They have a history of buying up succesful game studios.

Before Bio was bought by EA it SOLD OUT to a holding company for a big fat sack of cash. While all it's games made money, having Atari as a publisher meant money was tight, but since Atari held the license for the Forgotten Realms IP they weren't exactly in a position to walk away. It was them and another studio that formed a holding company called VG. Pandemic was it? I forget. Anyway all kinds of promises were made. No creative interference etc. And these promises were kept. Right up until the holding company sold out to EA.

Just to be clear... EA bought Bio even though it was tied to another studio (Pandemic?), a company that WAS failing at the time.

In a very real sense Bio was a victim of it's own success.

For the record it doesn't matter who's on the EA team for DA3. I won't be buying it. To paraphrase the sentiment of a very wise wise man, and one of the best studio devs that ever walked the face of the planet, I don't like the direction this new EA/Bio hybrid is taking. EA also has an unfortunate history of squeezing the life out of every studio they buy, and Bio is clearly no exception to this tradition. While I will continue to enjoy their legacy titles I won't be spending any more of my hard earned money on any future releases.

Bioware was in financial trouble (per Stanley Woo)  which is why Elevation Partners invested money in them and paired them with Pandemic. Bioware did not sell out to Elevation Partners. Elevation Partners is a Venture Capitalist and came in as an angel investor. Bioware and Pandemic were still losing money as VG Holding.  EA decided to buy VG Holding for the IPs. Both studios were losing money. No Bioware was not a failure but it was losing money which is one reason why DAO was delayed. Elevation Partners sold VG Holding to get back its money and make a profit which is what venture capitalist do especially if they do not see a long term rate of return.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 05 janvier 2012 - 09:23 .

[Inujade]

Zanallen wrote...

Hepler talking about the range of love interests; the characters spanning from virginal next door type to promiscuous and sexy: I still have no problems. Different love interests should be different. What's the issue with it?

Forgive me, I know this post was a while ago, but I think I can shed some light on why this clip is problematic for some people (including me, to be honest).

It reflects this old idea called The Madonna-**** complex, where society sees women as always in one of two categories --the virginal Madonna or the sexualized ****. Hepler is only talking about the female love interests there, and she only presents them (as far as we can see; who knows how much of what she said was edited out by the marketing team) in the terms of their sexual contexts ...we don't hear that Merrill is impudent and audacious as well as sweet-tempered, or that Isabela has a great sense of humour. Nothing about them as individuals. Just 'this one's a virgin, this one's promiscuous, pick your fantasy.'

It's not a huge problem, since it was just 'let's hype the game talk' and the actual romances don't reflect these attitudes. The actual romances are great, IMO. But it does reveal something ugly about who they thought they were marketing to.

[Tryynity]

I disagree that a new lead is needed.

I own/manage a national website and we took a direction that did not work and nearly wiped us out - but we have learned from that and are taking a new direction...

If one learns from management decisions that have backfired, they can go on to do great things.

Many mega billion operators have made mistakes and experienced failures along the way - Richard Branson, Donald Trump, are two that I know of...

You are a tough crowd LOL

Modifié par Tryynity, 05 janvier 2012 - 10:56 .

[Morducai]

Tryynity wrote...

I disagree that a new lead is needed.

I own/manage a national website and we took a direction that did not work and nearly wiped us out - but we have learned from that and are taking a new direction...

If one learns from management decisions that have backfired, they can go on to do great things.

Many mega billion operators have made mistakes and experienced failures along the way - Richard Branson, Donald Trump, are two that I know of...

You are a tough crowd LOL

That's why you have things like market research in place to make sure decisions won't backfire. Like I said before DA2 ultimate faliure was in it's marketing. 

[Tryynity]

Morducai wrote...

Tryynity wrote...

I disagree that a new lead is needed.

I own/manage a national website and we took a direction that did not work and nearly wiped us out - but we have learned from that and are taking a new direction...

If one learns from management decisions that have backfired, they can go on to do great things.

Many mega billion operators have made mistakes and experienced failures along the way - Richard Branson, Donald Trump, are two that I know of...

You are a tough crowd LOL

That's why you have things like market research in place to make sure decisions won't backfire. Like I said before DA2 ultimate faliure was in it's marketing. 

UrDamn right - you think Branson & Trump could have afforded a team of market researchers 

Modifié par Tryynity, 05 janvier 2012 - 11:33 .

[eroeru]

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.

Will go back to this for a moment... What ticked off people were actual changes to the series and the genre they loved, not some random factor. The extrapolation is ok not because of the amount of people who come on the forums to be critical about DA2, nor because the sales were unexpectedly low, it's more based on the actual content of the criticisms, also on the sheer magnitude of the changes, which I think no-one denies.

Most people, even the more raging ones, have some adequate explanation to give as to why they didn't enjoy it. It mostly falls into place as criticism about player agency and such; generalizing, I might say it's about the RPG getting less complicated. It's a view that was meantioned by the devs before the game came out. They took a direction for a whole new marketing audience, which they hoped wouldn't contradict with the requirements of the niche already established. The thing is, a niche doesn't have elements they require, they have a whole world-view and consuming habits (darn I don't like the term) based on this. And these changes to the style and the more complex nature of games were actually vast changes. Yes, to the exact opposite direction, as far as these categories are involved.

Anyway, feedback is always taken into account from a select number of people. The notion that we can't extrapolate, solely based on numbers, will make all feedback unmeaningful. I understand that from a business view-point they tend to go with numbers, but actual analysis of the situation begs for somewhat more insightful meaning. Also, I might come out with my personal fact, these being that I have quite a few friends who strongly dislike DA2, but don't come on the forums.

If we can't make the jump of generalization (/extrapolation) in this situation, we cannot make it at all, I think.

[TwistedComplex]

Hopefully not the "BUTTON-AWESOME" guy

[DreamwareStudio]

eroeru wrote...


Will go back to this for a moment... What ticked off people were actual changes to the series and the genre they loved, not some random factor. The extrapolation is ok not because of the amount of people who come on the forums to be critical about DA2, nor because the sales were unexpectedly low, it's more based on the actual content of the criticisms, also on the sheer magnitude of the changes, which I think no-one denies.

Most people, even the more raging ones, have some adequate explanation to give as to why they didn't enjoy it. It mostly falls into place as criticism about player agency and such; generalizing, I might say it's about the RPG getting less complicated. It's a view that was meantioned by the devs before the game came out. They took a direction for a whole new marketing audience, which they hoped wouldn't contradict with the requirements of the niche already established. The thing is, a niche doesn't have elements they require, they have a whole world-view and consuming habits (darn I don't like the term) based on this. And these changes to the style and the more complex nature of games were actually vast changes. Yes, to the exact opposite direction, as far as these categories are involved.

Anyway, feedback is always taken into account from a select number of people. The notion that we can't extrapolate, solely based on numbers, will make all feedback unmeaningful. I understand that from a business view-point they tend to go with numbers, but actual analysis of the situation begs for somewhat more insightful meaning. Also, I might come out with my personal fact, these being that I have quite a few friends who strongly dislike DA2, but don't come on the forums.

If we can't make the jump of generalization (/extrapolation) in this situation, we cannot make it at all, I think.

VERY WELL SAID.  I tried to explain that, but I like the way you've done it better.

[TheRealJayDee]

Realmzmaster wrote...
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.

That's why it's a very damn risky thing to do a 180° from first to second game, I'd even call it stupid. If all goes according to plan in the end you have brought over most of those who liked the first game to liking the second game as well, plus you get new fans who are attracted by the new direction. If things go wrong, though, you are left with two groups of fans who are essentialy at war with each other over the question of the further course of the franchise they both love for different reasons.

So where to go from there? I, as someone who is extremely dissapointed with DA2, hope for a return to a more DA:O like game, while others hope for a continuation of DA2. Will Bioware find a way to make us both happy and bring back the Dragon Age franchise to the greatness it deserves? I don't know, and I'm rather sceptic about me and DA getting back together. DA3 will have to be an excellent game, really really great, to please all fans. For that the game needs time and care above all other things.

I hope Bioware realizes that, whoever may be in charge, and tries to deliever the greatest story driven, party based RPG ever! We all love Dragon Age, we all love Thedas, please make the game the fans and the amazing setting deserve. So, guys, what I wanna hear from you is this:

Modifié par TheRealJayDee, 05 janvier 2012 - 01:36 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Bioware was in financial trouble (per Stanley Woo)  which is why Elevation Partners invested money in them and paired them with Pandemic. Bioware did not sell out to Elevation Partners. Elevation Partners is a Venture Capitalist and came in as an angel investor. Bioware and Pandemic were still losing money as VG Holding.  EA decided to buy VG Holding for the IPs. Both studios were losing money. No Bioware was not a failure but it was losing money which is one reason why DAO was delayed. Elevation Partners sold VG Holding to get back its money and make a profit which is what venture capitalist do especially if they do not see a long term rate of return.

I'm glad someone swooped in and cleared this up. The previous poster was not only egergiously wrong, but was stating that YOU were the one who needed to get the facts straight.

Bioware made great games in the past, but didn't make great profits. The "out-of-the-park" games did not outweigh the less than stellar performance ones, nor were the out of the park games coming out often enough to turn a large profit. This was before the DA, ME and TOR franchises, of course, which have proven to be big money-makers. This put them in a position where they needed cash to keep the ME and DAO projects alive back in 2007. Through a series of business and investment decisions, EA came in and bought Bioware and a few other game developers that had been forged together.

So Bioware was in danger of going under if EA had not stepped in. LIkely, we would not have seen the Mass Effect or Dragon Age franchises see the light of day if they had not done what they did. So saying Bioware sold out either the Mass Effect or Dragon Age franchises to EA is completely ludicrious. EA's purchase of Bioware ALLOWED these two game IPs to come into existence.

[andraip]

@OP

You want BioWare to say who is the Lead Designer of DA3 before announcing that they even are working on it?

Oh, and it won't be Mr. Laidlaw, he got promoted to the rank of Creative Director of the DA series.