It seems the reason for DA2 feeling slightly underbaked is that during that time resources were put into the Star Wars MMO. Not surprising considering how Origins were asked by EA to devote resources into Ultima Online years ago.
Would DA3 suffer the same fate? Content updates have to be frequent and high quality to keep MMO-ers interested in such a competitive scene, but the subscription revenue at critical mass would outstrip any blockbuster single-player game including DA3. This alone might be enough to encourage Bioware/EA to reprioritize assets and outsource the rest.
Is Bioware stretched thin by SW:TOR?
Débuté par
Currylaksa
, avril 15 2012 09:37
Retour en haut
#2
Posté 15 avril 2012 - 11:27
bEVEsthda
-
- Members
- 3 615 messages
I've had some thoughts about this too.
The thing is that there are different teams. DA, ME and TOR (and prob others too).
Considering DA, DA2 to be specific, I don't see anything conclusive. The rapid development and great amount of things that were changed, means that the end result, which is pretty solid (in a craftmanship sense of way), doesn't provide much evidence of the developing team being too thin. I suspect it was, and that M.L. had to drive the ship hard, on the brink. But since he almost pulled it off, it's no clear thing. There are the re-used environments, without which DA2 would have been a much shorter game.
Also, looking at the writing, I think there are two really strong teams, DA2 and ME3. There's no lack there. Also, while I don't know, since I haven't looked at TOR, I would expect that team to also be strong, possibly the strongest.
But I do see weakness. I see weakness in decision making and management. Huge weakness. Ruinous, franchise-breaking, company-breaking, corporation-breaking weakness.
There's been such a display of poor judgement on crucial decisions, that it's rather astounding. And unprecedented, even for EA.
Question is if this is a result of good, competent managers being spread too thinly? Are there too many green, weak, insecure heads with too little integrity, too little awareness of what is important?
Or is it a result of the real shots being called from elsewhere? An elsewhere that is only remotely aware of the intricacies of the local geography? An elsewhere that doesn't care about important things because it has always assumed they aren't important?
I would assume this second scenario is somewhat dependant upon the first situation already existing: Too many Yeay-sayers. An organisation should be controlled from the top, but it then depends on a chain of echelon officers to make communications that make the top aware of relevant issues.
All speculations of course, since we know so little. But that is not to say we don't see some details behind the great mysteries.
Why did the ME3 producer suddenly write the ME3 ending himself? Without input from the writing team? A task that wasn't his. A task he was clearly utterly incompetent to do! And how come he was able to indulge in this disaster without any internal failsafe mechanisms springing into action?
And this Hot-rod samurai console-romp: Surely some would have seen the disaster coming from implying it was the successor to DA:O, by calling it DA2? I mean, that doesn't take much intelligence or awareness. Why doesn't someone protest? Or why can't they make their protests count?
Hopefully TOR will make ok enough. But I've always said the formula was a bad enough idea to not be worth the effort. I understand the temptation to have a cash-cow like Blizzard's WoW. But you cannot get that by copying.
EA have a huge organisational problem. But that is no news. I've heard J.R. talk a lot about his goals to revamp EA's image. I had such hopes. I've seen nothing of that being implemented. Rather, it's worse than ever. It's as if EA isn't controlled from the top. So who do? A secret conspiracy of middle managers? And in that case, what is their goal? It certainly doesn't seem to be EA's profitability.
The thing is that there are different teams. DA, ME and TOR (and prob others too).
Considering DA, DA2 to be specific, I don't see anything conclusive. The rapid development and great amount of things that were changed, means that the end result, which is pretty solid (in a craftmanship sense of way), doesn't provide much evidence of the developing team being too thin. I suspect it was, and that M.L. had to drive the ship hard, on the brink. But since he almost pulled it off, it's no clear thing. There are the re-used environments, without which DA2 would have been a much shorter game.
Also, looking at the writing, I think there are two really strong teams, DA2 and ME3. There's no lack there. Also, while I don't know, since I haven't looked at TOR, I would expect that team to also be strong, possibly the strongest.
But I do see weakness. I see weakness in decision making and management. Huge weakness. Ruinous, franchise-breaking, company-breaking, corporation-breaking weakness.
There's been such a display of poor judgement on crucial decisions, that it's rather astounding. And unprecedented, even for EA.
Question is if this is a result of good, competent managers being spread too thinly? Are there too many green, weak, insecure heads with too little integrity, too little awareness of what is important?
Or is it a result of the real shots being called from elsewhere? An elsewhere that is only remotely aware of the intricacies of the local geography? An elsewhere that doesn't care about important things because it has always assumed they aren't important?
I would assume this second scenario is somewhat dependant upon the first situation already existing: Too many Yeay-sayers. An organisation should be controlled from the top, but it then depends on a chain of echelon officers to make communications that make the top aware of relevant issues.
All speculations of course, since we know so little. But that is not to say we don't see some details behind the great mysteries.
Why did the ME3 producer suddenly write the ME3 ending himself? Without input from the writing team? A task that wasn't his. A task he was clearly utterly incompetent to do! And how come he was able to indulge in this disaster without any internal failsafe mechanisms springing into action?
And this Hot-rod samurai console-romp: Surely some would have seen the disaster coming from implying it was the successor to DA:O, by calling it DA2? I mean, that doesn't take much intelligence or awareness. Why doesn't someone protest? Or why can't they make their protests count?
Hopefully TOR will make ok enough. But I've always said the formula was a bad enough idea to not be worth the effort. I understand the temptation to have a cash-cow like Blizzard's WoW. But you cannot get that by copying.
EA have a huge organisational problem. But that is no news. I've heard J.R. talk a lot about his goals to revamp EA's image. I had such hopes. I've seen nothing of that being implemented. Rather, it's worse than ever. It's as if EA isn't controlled from the top. So who do? A secret conspiracy of middle managers? And in that case, what is their goal? It certainly doesn't seem to be EA's profitability.
Modifié par bEVEsthda, 15 avril 2012 - 12:27 .
#3
Posté 15 avril 2012 - 11:30
AkiKishi
-
- Members
- 10 898 messages
They were quite desperate with TOR, but I don't think it will have much impact if any on DA3. TOR is done now one way or the other.
Short of a complete redisign TOR is what it is.
Biowares project management is all over the place so anything could happen.
Short of a complete redisign TOR is what it is.
Biowares project management is all over the place so anything could happen.
Modifié par BobSmith101, 15 avril 2012 - 11:31 .
#4
Posté 15 avril 2012 - 11:18
deuce985
-
- Members
- 3 572 messages
I don't think helped but wasn't a huge contributing factor.
Bioware is pretty big now under EA. They have what, 4 or 5 development teams? Bioware only had 2 before EA took over(I think). The fact ME is probably a higher priority and so was SWTOR...it probably didn't help them. DA:O was in development for a long time and I think EA had a little push on DA2 to come out quicker. DA:O sold about 4 million in it's lifetime? Good for that type of game. But it had like a 5 year dev cycle. You have to think 4 million sold isn't a lot with a dev cycle like that. Can only imagine the budget. I think EA/Bioware came to the conclusion they could streamline DA2 enough where they could get a short cycle and release a solid game. It obviously didn't work like they intended as DA2 didn't sell well. I think it had more to do with offsetting the costs DA:O put them through those years. I don't know the budget, obviously, but 5 years and only 4 million sold isn't a big number...
That would be different if that number was on a budget in 2 year dev cycles.
Bioware is pretty big now under EA. They have what, 4 or 5 development teams? Bioware only had 2 before EA took over(I think). The fact ME is probably a higher priority and so was SWTOR...it probably didn't help them. DA:O was in development for a long time and I think EA had a little push on DA2 to come out quicker. DA:O sold about 4 million in it's lifetime? Good for that type of game. But it had like a 5 year dev cycle. You have to think 4 million sold isn't a lot with a dev cycle like that. Can only imagine the budget. I think EA/Bioware came to the conclusion they could streamline DA2 enough where they could get a short cycle and release a solid game. It obviously didn't work like they intended as DA2 didn't sell well. I think it had more to do with offsetting the costs DA:O put them through those years. I don't know the budget, obviously, but 5 years and only 4 million sold isn't a big number...
That would be different if that number was on a budget in 2 year dev cycles.
