17 réponses à ce sujet

[PillingPower]

I wonder, given the timing of the announcement, whether the rising of fandom against the ME 3 ending provoked a panic at Bioware that led to the announcement regarding the ending of DA 2 DLC or expansion? With regard to such a 'wiping the slate clean', I cannot believe the two aren't linked. Was the DA design team still working on the expansion two weeks ago?
I think we should be told.

[David Gaider]

It's simple: DA2 dlc didn't sell.

That's not true, sorry.

There's roughly zero interest for anything DA2 related, outside the die-hards on this forum. Bioware drawing the right kinds of conclusions from this, is the hope for DA3 and the DA franchise.

Please keep in mind that, even though you're hearing about the DA decision now, it was not made just recently. So the Mass Effect ending brouhaha is unrelated.

While I'm certain there are many who'll draw their own conclusions as to BioWare's motivations, really it boils down to what Mark Darrah (our Executive Producer-- my boss's boss and the man in charge of DA) already said: in order to work on the expansion we'd have needed to split our efforts. While moving on is always a bit difficult, sometime's it's for the best.

[David Gaider]

PillingPower wrote...
I must admit that I for one think it's a shame and a mistake, that Hawke's story will not be resolved fully through gameplay - it lacks closure now.

I wish it was otherwise, myself, but when it comes to story design in game development no plan ever survives contact with the enemy. There's always a balance between what you want to do and what you have to do... and, honestly, what often happens is that thing you really didn't want to do turns out to be the better route in the end. Which is frustrating as hell, but serendipity's a **** like that.

So we'll move on and try to make it work, and hopefully the sacrifice will come with some payoff-- as in a payoff for the fans, of DA2 as well as the series in general, when they eventually see what that sacrifice was for.

Modifié par David Gaider, 20 mars 2012 - 03:14 .

[David Gaider]

Darth Death wrote...
I see this as a problem. What you have to do is what you need to do, and what you need to do is not what fans want you to do. LOL worded weirdly, but what I'm saying is give fans what they want & not what you think they need. As a business, you're trying to satisfy your costumers. Don't deprive them. If the majority are asking for something, satisfy them with it. BioWare's perspective of what fans need conflicts with what fans want.

Well, this is also a problem. It's not always about doing what the fans "need" -- I know that's how you interpreted my statement, but sometimes it's about what the project needs or the company needs. Which makes a fan's face scrunch up, I know, because they hate to think about what we do as being a business... but it is, in addition to being a creative endeavour.

Even when it does come to what the fans need/want... which fans? I know someone could respond to that by saying "us, the ones here on the forums"... but I don't think it's a stretch to say that there is no unison in that opinion. It's not a singular thing, even among those most committed (either for or against). So spending all our time trying to discern a single opinion to that is counter-productive.

Which is not to say we can't get the gist... or several gists, really. And once we do, we'll need to figure out where we need to go, simply because we can't spend all our time trying to follow the vagaries of fan opinion, either. There comes a point where the fan needs to decide for himself or herself whether what we're making is of interest to them, rather than tilting at windmills for the sake of something that cannot happen. But I get why they'd do it (I'd probably do it as well, in their position), and we should and do appreciate the investment... and would be stupid to disregard well-intended advice in any case. So I don't think we'll do that.

Or I hope not. Some decisions are not mine to make.

[David Gaider]

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...
Thanks for your reply David.
The only thing that bothers me about it is that it's still extremely vague. The only thing I read between the lines that you for one wanted the expansion but you're not allowed to make any more comments on where Bioware is taking the DA story.

Of course I wanted the expansion to happen. This wouldn't be the first time I didn't get what I want, however, and I'm sure it won't be the last. That's just the way it is. I've had my mourning period already, and as usual I move on and work with what I have. That's my job.

We can't comment on the expansion's story, however, because some elements of that story will be carried forward. Have to be, really. As for where we're going with DA in general, I'm not allowed to say more. It'd be nice if I could take you all into confidence and discuss things frankly, but not only is that not allowed when it comes to unannounced projects, it might also not be the best idea on the whole... at least, not until we're in a position to actually show you what we mean. Once that happens, I think the discussion can move from vagueness into more specifics. What's nice is that I believe Mike and Mark are committed towards having more open discussion in general.

[David Gaider]

FitScotGaymer wrote...
Someone tell EA to put David Gaider in charge of Bioware lol.

Well, if you see how some of the fans react, you'd think they believe I already am. Or, at least, that it's writers who determine the entirety of a project's shape. Which is ironic (and not in the Alanis Morisette sense), but there you go. I've no need to be in charge of anything, thank you, as then I wouldn't be able to work as a creator. But thanks for the vote of confidence.

[David Gaider]

Costin_Razvan wrote...
I'd imagine that major decisions are taken between the leads of the various departments with the executive producer having the final say? I'm curios if you could tell us anything about that Mr. Gaider.

That depends on which decisions, really.

There is direction that comes from the company level (meaning from EA or, at least, from the BioWare executive level) which stems from the goals as the company of the whole. There is direction that comes from the project level (meaning the people who keep the bigger picture in mind for Dragon Age as a whole, as opposed to the narrower focus of the leads). And there is direction that comes from the department level... such as the Design department (as opposed to, say, Art or Programming) which has a bit broader focus than someone who's a sub-lead, like myself.

Mark Darrah is our Executive Producer, and handles concerns from the project level. It's his job to talk to EA, and to corral all the Leads. He has the final say when the Leads disagree.

Mike Laidlaw is our Lead Designer, and handles concerns from teh department level. It's his job to talk to Mark, and to corral all the Sub-Leads. He has the final say when the Sub-Leads disagree, at least when it comes to something our department has ownership over.

So Mark is my boss's boss, and the end boss of DA. Mike is my boss, and thus is that boss you fight shortly before the end boss. I am the boss of one of the first major plots you play, the one who gives you information which leads you to the end boss.

[David Gaider]

Costin_Razvan wrote...
David Gaider: I see then, thank you for your answer it's kinda how I thought it was. It's really dissapointing when people who hate something just point fingers at a single person in a company and blame him for everything. Kinda like how Mac Walters or Casedy Hudson are getting a lot of hate from the people who hate the endings of ME3.

I don't really mind. Honestly, as someone who does have a little authority over the part of the game I work on I'm happy to receive flak-- even if it's often flak for things over which I have little control, because I happen to be convenient (and because I frequently shoot off at the mouth, and say things some fans really don't like to hear). I'd rather they come after me than after people with no authority at all.

[David Gaider]

Ystitans78 wrote...
I'm not saying it's anyone on this forum but why is it that people that play videogames get all upset when a game company calls making games a business?

It's not universally true, but I think many gamers prefer the idea of three guys working out of their basement-- doing it for the pure love of gaming, rather than the love of money. The truth is those guys would no doubt happily "sell out" if they could, and take those risks that fans love both because they must and because they can (because their relative expenses mean they can afford to target a smaller potential audience)... and it's also true that "selling out" and being part of a big company does not mean you stop being a creator or stop having love for your craft.

I think most fans realize this, at some level or other, but the way discourse works on the Internet it seems like every argument ends up at the most extreme ends. There is no middle ground, and thus developers are either awesome and indie or they're malevolent corporate automatons. It's not a productive way to communicate, but then again it's not as if the Internet is particularly good at facilitating real communication.

[David Gaider]

Mike_Neel wrote...
Hey David. Did you guys ever consider out sourcing the expansion pack to another Bioware division? Like Bioware Austin or Montreal or where ever?

I know it's a bit hard to let someone else work on your IP, but was the idea ever tossed around in order to let you the main DA guys focus on the Next Thing and still get an expansion pack out there to the gamers?

I think it was considered, but it's not as if theose other parts of BioWare have nothing to do. As Mark mentioned recently, the overall team size for a project is relatively fixed. We work with the headcount we have, just as the other projects must manage their manpower... for any project, that's your #1 cost. So we need to decide where our effort is best utilized, as that manpower will never be unlimited.

Insofar as outsourcing goes, I think there's always a danger when you hand something over to people who aren't part of the project. Could they do something with it? Sure. Could they do something the fans would see and recognize as Dragon Age? Maybe... but as you see whenever third parties start doing ancillary products, there's always a danger, particularly when we don't have the time to oversee every single point along the way. If we were doing that, we may as well be doing the project ourselves. So while such a path could have gotten an expansion pack out to gamers, that doesn't mean it would have been something those gamers wanted... and, whatever the Next Big Thing is going to be, it's probably pretty important that it be on-message, as it were.

That make sense?

[David Gaider]

Filament wrote...
Wait, I thought Mike Laidlaw was promoted to Creative Director?

My title is Senior Writer. I share that with a number of other people.

My role on this project is Lead Writer.

They are not always the same thing.

[Stanley Woo]

PresidentCowboy wrote...

What was the delay in getting the news to us on the cancellation of DA2 if it wasn't a recent thing?

There was no "delay." We decide what to say and when we're going to say it. Repeatedly requesting, demanding or begging for information doesn't change that. Sorry.

[David Gaider]

Trix-Rabbit wrote...
Dear sir, being a lead writer do they let you pick the name of the game?

Me? Oh HELL no. There's not a single game I've worked on which would have had the title it did, had it been up to me. The title which goes on the box is a decision that's made at a very high level.

This is probably for the best, however, as I'm not sure my personal picks would be better for the game... they would just fit better with the story of that game. But I'm expected to take that position, because I'm the guy who has to advocate on behalf of the story whenever anything comes up. I know that's difficult for fans to imagine, as they see "story" as everything they play, but it's really only one element of the game's design.

[David Gaider]

BillsVengenace wrote...
There are too many cooks in that kitchen.

What do you expect when a team of 80 to 100 people work on a single game? LIke I said, it's not 3 guys in a basement... so you have to have an organization and there has to be someone, at the end of the day, who makes the final calls. Otherwise we would spend all our time arguing-- I think anyone who spends five minutes on this forum can grasp the idea that lots of people who feel passionate about the same thing can still have very fundamentally different ideas and approaches towards it.

[David Gaider]

Darth Death wrote...
You don't know that. I'm sure your expertise range beyond storytelling. It's not realistic for every suggestion to make the cut, but do you ever wonder if they had, how much better the game could've been?  

I could, but that kind of second-guessing is best left for the fans speculating after the fact. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but we don't have that luxury when we're in the midst of development, and for us to start down the mental path of might-have-been is the way to madness.

[David Gaider]

Maria Caliban wrote...
That's really all the closure I need.

Without implying anything about the people involved, I think when people say "I need closure" they're not really all talking about the same thing. Some people seem to refer to closure as "I still have questions" or "there still seems to be things my character could do"... in which case I'm not sure there's any ending other than death which would actually give them the closure they seek. Perhaps not even then.

Regardless, it's not invalid as they're clearly feeling like things aren't "finished", but it's one of those things I'm not sure can (or should necessarily) be addressed. It also doesn't help when it's one of those terms (like "cliche") which often get used by people who mean entirely different things when using it.

[David Gaider]

renjility wrote...
The ending felt more unfinished due to Leliana's remark about the Warden and Hawke both disappearing, which is apparently "no coincidence". That turned the ending more into an odd and unexpected cliffhanger, raising a little too many questions for many people.

Sure, but the existence of questions-- even new ones-- does not mean an ending has not occurred. Characters do move off into the sunset, their lives not quite finished and going onto other adventures outside of the narrative... being personally invested in that tale, and left wondering what those "other adventures" might be, is understandable (and complimentary). Not complete closure, sure... but then again I'm not certain "complete closure" is always required.

Just my opinion, of course. I don't think there's an accepted route for this sort of tale, especially considering the differences between this sort of story and a regular one.

[David Gaider]

Sylvianus wrote...
I don't like Hawk, but to be fair toward those who care about him, yes, he lacked closure to me. He becomes viscount but disappears a while after, so it's not true that it is fine. Why did he need to vanish while he was the viscount ?

See, this is what I mean.

The idea that a character might move onto a new story is not really a lack of closure-- for the character, perhaps, but not the story. Wondering what a character is going to do next is not a lack of closure... or, at least, not the sort we would worry about. I don't really see a requirement to end a story with "and the character went on to be happy and nothing of interest occurred to them again", and players wanting to know more is understandable but not really an issue.

And I know that's not necessarily the sentimenet being expressed. Someone might feel the ending they did receive wasn't satisfactory... but, again, that's not the same thing as lacking closure in the narraive. Which makes it difficult for me, when people talk about this, to discern whether they're talking about one thing or the other.

But it's cool. Discussing one's feelings isn't a science, after all.

Modifié par David Gaider, 22 mars 2012 - 07:44 .