150 réponses à ce sujet

[Huntress]

Did ME 3 ending rebellion kill DA 2?

Dought it, but at the back of my mind there is a voice wispering: if you want something, you have to whinne for it for a year!! the pay off is fewer dlc and alot of doughts from the developers team.

 voice: if you don't like something trash it until someone take notes that   $60 dollards  can last for more than a year of pain and suffering. to the one who liked the game and came to the forum looking for answers or just to talk about the game. the pay off :no expantion and a terrible end in DA2 act3.

The moral of the story is: if the child cry because he wants to play with matches give him a torch and a lollipop.

Let see if the majority group or the "hurt" group will appease now and stop trashing people comment because  they like da2, I dought it but, hey!  at least am allowed to dream about it!

Modifié par Huntress, 20 mars 2012 - 04:49 .

[Wulfram]

PresidentCowboy wrote...

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

They wouldn't have wanted to distract from ME3 before it was released.

[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.

[LobselVith8]

bEVEsthda wrote...

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

Well, there was a lot of backlash against Dragon Age II. There were more than a few people who felt that it failed to live up to expectations.

Not certain about the sales for Legacy or MoTA, but I don't think the two story DLCs improved much - the choices didn't matter in either story DLC, since it lead to roughly the same conclusion (which was the same complaint made about the "two" endings to Dragon Age II, that were basically the same ending with only minor differences). I know people complained about the plot railroad for both DLCs, especially the pro-Qunari aspect of MoTA.

[Costin_Razvan]

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.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 20 mars 2012 - 05:55 .

[Itsgoodtobe]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

Thank you so much for that answer David - the nerdy students taking their degree in Game design is very thankful for such an inside scoop of how things work - especially the gamified version in the end

[Ystitans78]

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? Isn't that how it's been for years? Can somebody name me a videogame company that doesn't care about making a profit? If these companys don't make money then they go out of business it's as simple as that. Maybe this post is a little off topic but I really don't understand why or when making money became such a bad thing to say.

[bEVEsthda]

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? Isn't that how it's been for years? Can somebody name me a videogame company that doesn't care about making a profit? If these companys don't make money then they go out of business it's as simple as that. Maybe this post is a little off topic but I really don't understand why or when making money became such a bad thing to say.

Well, that is just a generalization that is simply not true. Some people who play videogames are like that.
But I wouldn't even bet that they're large part, substantial - probably, but not really large. Most people are sensible enough to understand that it is a business and that hard work deserves to be rewarded.

I want EA to be successful. I want them, their stockholders and their developers to roll in money.
I think they commercially under-perform in a most hideous manner. And I'm upset by that. They make games that a lot of people really don't want. They go in directions which people don't want them to. They are artificially shrinking the market for videogames, by the type of content and style they insist on for their games.

 - Why? Fundamentally that question has me stumped. But I can see that the direct cause is that there are many people involved in EA who thinks all these things represent the direction that will be the most successful. (and wrongly so, by my conviction)
Does this say anything about how these EA people regard "gamers"? Why don't they take a step back and consider everybody as a potential market for videogames? Just as for any other entertainment media, novels, movies, music,..  Why do gamers have to be just a certain group of male 14-y olds?  - ...To put it very bluntly, in a *dumbed-down* manner.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 20 mars 2012 - 09:17 .

[Darth Death]

David Gaider wrote...
Or I hope not. Some decisions are not mine to make.

Of course. If my comment came off personal, then I'm sorry. I was referring to BioWare as a whole. I also appreciate your response.   

Modifié par Darth Death, 20 mars 2012 - 06:51 .

[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.

[Mike_Neel]

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?

[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?

[AkiKishi]

Filament wrote...

Let Obsidian do eeet.

They look pretty busy at the moment.

[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.

[Fiery Phoenix]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

Touche, sir.

[GardenSnake]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

Yeah, seriosuly, that's a bit too suspicious OP. I saw no connection whatsoever. It's just a coinkidink 

[Shinclone]

This is a shame to read. I admit at first I was a little disappointed with DA2, but really enjoyed my second playthrough with the dlc. I for one would have happily bought his new dlc and given it afair go.

[BillsVengenace]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

There are too many cooks in that kitchen.

[Ystitans78]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

I agree with what you are saying (thanks for the reply by the way) most fan aren't like that and it's just a small very loud group that thinks that way. I do however think that fans here misunderstand how feedback works. Just because someone or a group of people think that you guys should make DA:O 2.0 doesn't mean it's going to happen. I think too often people come here and demand things and that gets a little old. I don't think DA2 was a step in the wrong direction and I don't think there is anything wrong with making a game easier to play. If done the right way steamlining is the way to go. I know alot of people here hate or dislike Call of Duty but isn't it fair to say that they are doing something right after making a billion dollars in like a month? Wouldn't all the DA fans want to see DA3 sell that well?

[tariq071]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

I am sorry, but are  you saying that we will still be involved with unsatisfying(to put it nicely)  DA II main character and his faceless cohort of so-called companions/brats still be major part of next DA?

And are we going to have game mechanics closer to DA:O or this failed  DA II title?

I appologize for being so direct , but this will weigh into me and my friends buying next DA or not. I know that $1000 that we would spend between us in probably negligible amount for BW , but we really don't want to throw away our money like we did in case of  stillborn DA II.

Thanks

EDIT: Nwm, i got some of the answers here : twitter.com/#!/BioMarkDarrah/status/181906475420090369  . Apparently no retailer has interets in selling this(DA II and /or DLC's for it) , which is weird considering that DA: O ultimate sales are still healthy.

Modifié par tariq071, 20 mars 2012 - 11:10 .

[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.