Meverix wrote...
I'd start by asking developers like Valve how they do it.Allan Schumacher wrote...
That Video Games shouldn't have time constraints put on them.
That's an ideal, but I'm curious how you would reconcile it with the demands of reality.
Allan Schumacher wrote...
That Video Games shouldn't have time constraints put on them.
That's an ideal, but I'm curious how you would reconcile it with the demands of reality.
Allan Schumacher wrote...
I'm pretty sure Blizzard took their sweet time making games, even before WoW.
Actually, looking at their release schedule:
Warcraft II: 1995 (expansion 1996)
Diablo: 1996
Lost Vikings II: 1997
StarCraft: 1998 (Expansion 1998)
Diablo 2: 2000 (Expansion 2001)
Warcraft 3: 2002 (Expansion 2003)
World of Warcraft: 2004
Burning Crusade: 2007 (!!!)
WOTLK: 2008
StarCraft 2: 2010
Cataclysm: 2010
Diablo III: 2012
Modifié par Flextt, 23 avril 2012 - 12:00 .
fchopin wrote...
Allan Schumacher wrote...
That Video Games shouldn't have time constraints put on them.
That's an ideal, but I'm curious how you would reconcile it with the demands of reality.
I believe there should be time constrains but they should be realistic so developers have enough time to do what is required.
If some things are not complete then try and do them after the game is out for free if possible or in to a DLC if lots of time is required.
Allan Schumacher wrote...
I'd start by asking developers like Valve how they do it.
Tell that to Blizzard Entertainment.
Blizzard and Valve have significant persistent revenues in the form of World of Warcraft and Steam. (and my best guess is that Steam makes is much, much more than what World of Warcraft makes too)
i find it Hilarious that in That Link Marauder Shields is a main character LOLkarek wrote...
http://en.wikipedia....ries_charactersShaoken wrote...
karek wrote...
That's not quite true considering WoW has some of the most active and one of the largest dedicated development teams out there. The way you get around worrying about time constraints is by not blowing your budget on high profile voice actors and instead spending that time on actually quality producing aspects of the game like, I don't know, writing so you aren't missing something a important as the conclusion to your game on the first announced release date.Shaoken wrote...
Vasparian wrote...
Allan Schumacher wrote...
That Video Games shouldn't have time constraints put on them.
That's an ideal, but I'm curious how you would reconcile it with the demands of reality.
You ask blizzard and rockstar how they release such kick ass games and don't fall back on TIME CONSTRAINTS.. They just relesae when ready.
Blizzard has WoW to pay the bills. Rockstar I have no clue of.
The end result is that in order to avoid time constraints you have to have a consistant source of income to keep the company in business. You litterally have to be able to afford to take your time.
As for Rockstar, same reasoning, they make games that sell by spending time and budget actually developing their games. It's one of those wonderful practical things you usually find in studios that make profitable games that are generally liked, common sense priorities.
So they [Bioware] screwed themself over in 2 by casting Big names?
Also even then, EA set the deadline and were apparantly not going to budge on the first one, which limited what Bioware could do with the ending (or so I heard).
But I guess your point is split between Bioware and EA, since Blizzard and Rockstar last time I checked control the budget themselves but also determine how to use it.
So yes, more than a little considering after 2 they doubled the VO time budget. Also, as far as Bioware and EA, no, the point is not split at all, they're one linear company with a specific creative team given a reasonable starting budget, and in the case of this game in particular a pretty massive one. As they're owned by their own production company they actually have MORE wiggle room with production timetables than they otherwisewould and guaranteed market entry at that and EA has MORE incentive to pay for high profile advertisment than companies like Rockstar or Blizzard(notice how Activision notably doesn't do this for them except on WoW) who can't guarantee release timelines until they know they can meet them. Diablo 3 is just one example of this, it was announced as definitely coming out on the same day ME3 was but Blizzard can't risk ME3's shifting release dates.
Allan Schumacher wrote...
That Video Games shouldn't have time constraints put on them.
That's an ideal, but I'm curious how you would reconcile it with the demands of reality.
outlaw1109 wrote...
I still don't understand what dev time has to do with the me3 "controversy".
The controversy is about the endings.
BioWare has said that they stand by their artistic vision.
Meaning, more dev time would have produced the same result. Other parts of the game would have been more epic and many people would still be disappointed by the ending. Sure, the ending felt rushed and bland, but that's the ending they wanted so they could pave the way for the ME mmo...
Elite Midget wrote...
Allan Schumacher wrote...
That Video Games shouldn't have time constraints put on them.
That's an ideal, but I'm curious how you would reconcile it with the demands of reality.
Work at Blizzard.
-Area51-Silent wrote...
Allan Schumacher wrote...
I'd start by asking developers like Valve how they do it.
Tell that to Blizzard Entertainment.
Blizzard and Valve have significant persistent revenues in the form of World of Warcraft and Steam. (and my best guess is that Steam makes is much, much more than what World of Warcraft makes too)
This is such a true statement. This is also why (I believe) ME1 was able to be crafted the way it was. ME1 had all the time in the world, considering how much $$ Microsoft brings in from its other sectors. Sadly companies like EA, Activision etc..have a single revenue stream, video games! while Activision has the power of Blizzard's WoW, EA is still developing the brand of SWTOR!
I am not sticking up for the company, but just making true statements. I think SWTOR was a great concept but they'd have done better to use Mass Effect or Jade Empire! why? because those are original IP's and the original (and developed) IP that Blizzard uses is something that worked so very well..but oh well!
I do still think that games should not be constrained though! and I also think that a decent release schedule of non-RPG titles that generates revenue should be planned around massive releases! but thats the business strategiest in me talking :-)
Modifié par Laurencio, 23 avril 2012 - 01:01 .
Shaoken wrote...
outlaw1109 wrote...
...
snip
Citation needed; no MMO has been annoucned and it would be stupid to spend more time and effort on an Mass Effect MMO when another Bioware team has already made an MMO that's still running. They'd be competeeing with themselves.
Also, Bioware is not going to badmouth the people who write their checks, but according to several sources the ending we got was a product of time and budget restrictions imposed by EA.
Laurencio wrote...
-Area51-Silent wrote...
Allan Schumacher wrote...
I'd start by asking developers like Valve how they do it.
Tell that to Blizzard Entertainment.
Blizzard and Valve have significant persistent revenues in the form of World of Warcraft and Steam. (and my best guess is that Steam makes is much, much more than what World of Warcraft makes too)
This is such a true statement. This is also why (I believe) ME1 was able to be crafted the way it was. ME1 had all the time in the world, considering how much $$ Microsoft brings in from its other sectors. Sadly companies like EA, Activision etc..have a single revenue stream, video games! while Activision has the power of Blizzard's WoW, EA is still developing the brand of SWTOR!
I am not sticking up for the company, but just making true statements. I think SWTOR was a great concept but they'd have done better to use Mass Effect or Jade Empire! why? because those are original IP's and the original (and developed) IP that Blizzard uses is something that worked so very well..but oh well!
I do still think that games should not be constrained though! and I also think that a decent release schedule of non-RPG titles that generates revenue should be planned around massive releases! but thats the business strategiest in me talking :-)
Star Wars is a far bigger market than Mass Effect or Jade Empire. It's a universe and "atmopshere" that has built itself a reputation and gained new fans for over 30 years. It rivals any fanbase out there, including the Trekkies, who I might add have been largely screwed over by poor games. If you can get it right, there's more money in a Star Wars MMO than in anything else, aside from maybe a great Star Trek MMO.
outlaw1109 wrote...
Shaoken wrote...
outlaw1109 wrote...
...
snip
Citation needed; no MMO has been annoucned and it would be stupid to spend more time and effort on an Mass Effect MMO when another Bioware team has already made an MMO that's still running. They'd be competeeing with themselves.
Also, Bioware is not going to badmouth the people who write their checks, but according to several sources the ending we got was a product of time and budget restrictions imposed by EA.
Not announced, but rumored. I couldn't remember where I read it, but a brief google search turned this up: click here.
outlaw1109 wrote...
Red green and blue can't coexist!
I disagree.
In one way or another shepard dies, or is very near to it, the relays/citadel are destroyed and the Reaper threat is gone. All other variables could simply be wiped away by IDK, 100 years passing?
It was a success because people trusted blizzard to deliver an awesome game. It was nothing much than a failure in terms of quality but success in sales.Flextt wrote...
Allan Schumacher wrote...
I'm pretty sure Blizzard took their sweet time making games, even before
It is also fair to say, that while WotLK was a widespread success
spychi wrote...
It was a success because people trusted blizzard to deliver an awesome game. It was nothing much than a failure in terms of quality but success in sales.Flextt wrote...
Allan Schumacher wrote...
I'm pretty sure Blizzard took their sweet time making games, even before
It is also fair to say, that while WotLK was a widespread success
Just because the game sales well doesn't mean it's good or great or even awesome.
Another example Call of Duty games, those did end up after the 4th one.
Should have released them as patches to the original one cause those games didn't bring anything new.
Modifié par Dendio1, 23 avril 2012 - 01:28 .
No they are not the relays are destroyed regardless of your choic, even the godchild says it.Shaoken wrote...
outlaw1109 wrote...
Red green and blue can't coexist!
I disagree.
In one way or another shepard dies, or is very near to it, the relays/citadel are destroyed and the Reaper threat is gone. All other variables could simply be wiped away by IDK, 100 years passing?
The relays are around in the control ending, you can sabotage the genophage which after 100 years would leave most of the Krogan dead, you can see to the complete destruction of ether the Geth or the Quarians, synthesis has made all life a combination of synthettic and organics, the Rachni may or may not be alive.
Those are just the examples off the top of my head that can't be wiped away or mitigated. Several races dead or depleted, the relay network may or may not exist, life may r may not have green eyes that glow, etc.
spychi wrote...
No they are not the relays are destroyed regardless of your choic, even the godchild says it.Shaoken wrote...
outlaw1109 wrote...
Red green and blue can't coexist!
I disagree.
In one way or another shepard dies, or is very near to it, the relays/citadel are destroyed and the Reaper threat is gone. All other variables could simply be wiped away by IDK, 100 years passing?
The relays are around in the control ending, you can sabotage the genophage which after 100 years would leave most of the Krogan dead, you can see to the complete destruction of ether the Geth or the Quarians, synthesis has made all life a combination of synthettic and organics, the Rachni may or may not be alive.
Those are just the examples off the top of my head that can't be wiped away or mitigated. Several races dead or depleted, the relay network may or may not exist, life may r may not have green eyes that glow, etc.
See you have nothing more than false facts and bad knowledge .
spychi wrote...
Dude every time you talk with the godchild about the choices you have he says that the relays will be destroyed, only the citadel will prevail if you pick the control ending
Documental wrote...
that people thought EA was worst than the banks which illegally repossess homes and destroyed the US economy, than phone companies who lock people into horrendous contracts, than the companies which ship their manufacturing to third-world countries where the conditions are horrific and those that cut down forests and pollute the atmosphere.
Yeah, that's the major sticking point in me having any respect for anyone who voted EA in that poll because if you did, you are a despicable human being.
Retour en haut