43 réponses à ce sujet

[DahliaLynn]

On multiple Origins:
Lets just take the hypothetical that they do decide to implement multiple Origins. This could not be done without consequence. By just looking at the sheer amount of epilogue slides and possible endings for your DA:O Male/female/Dwarf Commoner/Noble/CityElf/DalishElf/Mage/HumanNoble, its just about impossible for their story to continue without devoting a ton or resources catering to every possibility. Not to mention tie-ins that could prove endless with all the possible combinations.

So if they create multiple Origins with multiple backstories in DA3,

1. Your new multiple Origins character(s) will likely never be seen again in any game after. Meaning, he/she has to die or disappear along with any story changing affects he/she had. If not, future effects could become exponential.
2. Your character can never logically meet any of your DA previous characters with any measure of story consistency without devoting an insane amount of time to cater to the one situation where your X Origin Warden made X choice out of several possibilities. Lets not forget your previous companions and the choices you made with them. (note the choice for various Alistair possibilities only as a Cameo in DA2 which while it was clever in implementation, lacked depth.)
3. On the visual production side: Major cinematic complications for different character sizes... and VO? probably the least of their problems.

DA2 set the premise for DA3 by providing one standard ending of which DA3 can base much of its story on. While the big negative was lack of multiple outcomes, it was a wise decision on their part in the sense of providing a firm basis for story continuity in DA3.

The more possible outcomes, the more complicated it will be to develop your character and party in future games, not to mention any other story based products. I have a feeling people simply won't be happy no matter how you actually implement it. I really doubt it's a question of money, but rather, is it worth all the insane amount of effort to put into different Origins and their relationships with DA characters you've come to know, that could either equal or even surpass the amount of resources it would take to make an entire game itself were it a fixed race.

Edit: The only way they could do this, would be to create an entirely new character, and have this story (in that "French place" be mostly disconnected from any prior Thedas story you took part in.
Edit#2: Either this, or go back in time pre-DA:O

Modifié par DahliaLynn, 30 avril 2012 - 01:13 .

[Pasquale1234]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

On the other hand, it seems like the fans requesting things aren't reason enough to put it into a game anymore. So what other options are there, when the one company who was offering a cool feature says they can't afford to do that feature in future games?

The problems are:
1)  The fanbase is now divided and wants different things, some of which are mutually exclusive.
2)  They seem to be in the mindset of making the game they want to make and then trying to develop a market for it instead of making the game that people who loved DAO wanted.

What we've seen thus far in the way they are dealing with feedback:
1)  They are sticking with voiced protag, dialog wheel, paraphrases, and some auto-dialog, although they are looking at ways to refine them.  Voicing the protag is a very expensive proposition but it supercedes what a significant portion of the fanbase wants.
2)  They are sticking with iconic looks, but proposing a degree of customization.  I think it's going to be much more expensive than simply allowing players to use other armors that may already exist in the game (there were other armored dwarves and elves in the game, they simply chose not to allow us to use those on our dwarven and elven companions), as there will be a lot more art concept, mesh, and skinning work involved.

It's pretty hard for me to feel sympathetic about the "affordability of cool features" when the features they are choosing to develop in lieu of the features I want are the more expensive ones.  They could have tested the waters for some of these more expensive features by offering them as DLCs to start with, such as the suggestion I've made about the voice packs (w/ cinematics).  The base game may have had a lot more content, and they would have had a clearer picture of how many players really value the VO.

Even so, I'm willing to pony up for a game I want.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I would happily donate to a Kickstater campaign to offer a silent protagonist as an option. BioWare has said it would be an expensive option to include because it would necessitate a different set of dialogue cinematics and cutscenes, but given that it seems like excellent Kickstarter matieral.

BioWare could estimate how much a silent protagonist option would cost, laucn a kickstarter for it, and if after 30 days they had enough money they could incorporate that into the game. If they didn't, then they announce that there wasn't enough interest (and we'd all see that it was true) and move forward without that feature.

I think Jimmy's suggestion is an excellent one, and it would go a long way to solving some of EA's PR problems.

I would be willing to support that, too - even though it means we would still have less overall game content due to the protag being voiced in the first place.

[AmstradHero]

DahliaLynn wrote...
On multiple Origins:
Lets just take the hypothetical that they do decide to implement multiple Origins. This could not be done without consequence. By just looking at the sheer amount of epilogue slides and possible endings for your DA:O Male/female/Dwarf Commoner/Noble/CityElf/DalishElf/Mage/HumanNoble, its just about impossible for their story to continue without devoting a ton or resources catering to every possibility. Not to mention tie-ins that could prove endless with all the possible combinations.

True, but this isn't Mass Effect.  No, this isn't a snide reference to "choices not mattering in Mass Effect", it's more that the Dragon Age series is about Thedas whereas Mass Effect is about Commander Shepard.

As such, BioWare can get away with only a subtle nod to those variations and choices in a few places throughout the game and it doesn't matter. Alistair's cameo lacked depth, but it didn't need depth because that's all it was, a cameo. It was blatant fan service to everyone who wanted to see him back in the game and have him say "Swooping is bad".  That's fine.

The point is that with DA:O and even DA2, there are a few key setting changing events that occur, and some of those must occur, and others can result in situations playing out largely the same aside from a handful of lines being different. Spared the architect in Awakening? Sure, he might appear to say a few lines, or a Grey Warden might mention "their ally". Killed him? Someone else fills his functional role in the story, or instead mentions about problems with the darkspawn.

I know all too well the ramifications of having real choices and ramifications from my own modding exploits. The Shattered War has a ridiculously complex epilogue based on all the different possibilities available to the player. I've had one heck of a time for my planning going through and trying to calculate to make sure that I've not missed anything. I wanted that in place because I want to make sure that those variances are there.

Yet if I (or someone else) wanted to continue the story afterwards, they could probably take a small selection of those decisions and use them at various points within a new game/mod and still have it feel as though it were an integrated tale. If they wanted to directly follow the player's story... well, then they'd have one heck of a time reconciling that with a new adventure.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

While I do agree with everyone that donating money to a corporation seems wrong, unnecessary and cheap, I also want certain features in DA3, features that I think may save it from being DA2 with more polish.

It's not donating, it's investing.  And the return is the product you want.

It's also low risk, because if the campaign doesn't reach its target no money is collected.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

I would be willing to support that, too - even though it means we would still have less overall game content due to the protag being voiced in the first place.

I would rather have half of a good game than half of a broken game.

[deuce985]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

While I do agree with everyone that donating money to a corporation seems wrong, unnecessary and cheap, I also want certain features in DA3, features that I think may save it from being DA2 with more polish.

It's not donating, it's investing.  And the return is the product you want.

It's also low risk, because if the campaign doesn't reach its target no money is collected.

That's the problem though.

I just don't see them doing this. Everyone would have something they'd expect in the game and Bioware would have absolutely no way to do this. Imagine the backlash when something isn't in the final game. It would be 10x worse than the ME3 ending reaction. Taking money from the gamers to fund a project makes it much more personal, therefore, more people will be self-entitled. Regardless how much funding they get from us...a corporation still controls them. They wouldn't want Bioware tied up on a project for 3 years just to get every little feature they can possibly get in. Imagine the manpower they'd lose on other potential projects. Also, if they were just adding features for fans on top of what they already have going on, how are they going to balance the project? I'd imagine QA sessions would be a nightmare.

It's a noble idea, I just can't see it working. Would I donate for something like this? Sure. But then I step back and realize EA is there...driving a wedge between the gamers and Bioware. I just don't see EA ever doing something like this.

Modifié par deuce985, 30 avril 2012 - 06:45 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

deuce985 wrote...

That's the problem though.

I just don't see them doing this. Everyone would have something they'd expect in the game and Bioware would have absolutely no way to do this. Imagine the backlash when something isn't in the final game.

But we'd all know in advance which features got funded and which didn't.  If they got funding for a detailed PDF manual, but not for a free-roaming tactical camera, then we're have reason to expect the manual but not the camera.

There's no way this could possibly make anyone angry unless they actually didn't include a funded feature.

[Massakkolia]

deuce985 wrote...

Regardless how much funding they get from us...a corporation still controls them. They wouldn't want Bioware tied up on a project for 3 years just to get every little feature they can possibly get in. Imagine the manpower they'd lose on other potential projects. Also, if they were just adding features for fans on top of what they already have going on, how are they going to balance the project? I'd imagine QA sessions would be a nightmare.

Agreed. That's the crux of the matter. EA doesn't want a Kickstarter project to disturb their production rhythm. Even if Bioware were able to raise a decent amount of money to fund, say, multiple origins, prolonged production cycle would likely make it unprofitable to EA. There's also the issue of marketing. EA wants to keep their brands (like Mass Effect or Dragon Age) alive and in the minds of the consumer base. This means releasing games and spinoff products regularly.

I don't completely agree with them but from EA's corporative point of view, using innovative funding methods like Kickstarter just isn't smart. People need to keep in mind that EA is a huge publicly traded company. It is their legal obligation to maximize the company's profit. I'd argue that EA often resorts to very old-fashioned and draconian ways to do that (and actually shoots itself in the foot) but I'd rather they increase the influence of the developers, not the influence of the fans. The devs can listen to the fans and use them as inspiration. Still, DA3 should be a Bioware product, not a fan wish list.

Also, I just feel corporations like EA using Kickstarter just goes against the core idea of kickstarting. It's meant to finance innovative projects, fresh crazy ideas, that those creative wonderful people out there want to make but they just don't have assets to do that. It's about creators finding fans, not about fans molding corporations into their dream creators. Established business should be able to stand on its own feet. That doesn't mean that EA shouldn't be innovative and take advantage of fan feedback, crowdsourcing and so on. 

[Fast Jimmy]

I agree that giving money to EA/Bioware, a large and established video game company, is not in the true spirit of Kickstarter, but it is an established site where this kind of activity (asking fans for financial support) is regular, so I use it as a over-arching mechanism of the idea.

If EA/Bioware were to open a forum thread here instead with a link to a Paypal site and a (donate $10 for X feature, I'd do that (as long as the feature wasn't bikini beach volleyball for the girls of Dragon Age). Conversely, I have NEVER bought a scrap of DLC, but will gladly pay $20 for an expansion pack.

I see it as a way for fans who are practically begging EA/Bioware to take their money to have a certain feature to do so. If EA/Bioware sees it as too much of a risk/investment from a financial point of view, then a way for the fans to curb some of this risk with financial support, then it would be great if they gave us the option to do so.

[upsettingshorts]

Hahahahahahahahha

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Firky wrote...

I'm not sure this is correct. Haven't the super-successes have been for the oldies, established names like Tim Schafer.

(I love Indies, though.)

The Kickstarter funds that raise over a million have been established names, but indie games have been successfully funded as well to the tune of smaller fortunes.

The Banner Saga is an example of some guys who were in the industry but only just formed a group to create a game of their own. 700k is nothing to sneeze at, although they seem to have substantial support from their peers still working in gaming companies. There are other success stories if you look around though.

Note that the funding appears to be coming from other developers, not publishers.

I doubt EA will turn to public funding..

[AmstradHero]

deuce985 wrote...
Taking money from the gamers to fund a project makes it much more personal, therefore, more people will be self-entitled.

People keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
There's no way this could possibly make anyone angry unless they actually didn't include a funded feature.

You mean, say, having an A, B, C ending at the end of a game trilogy, when it was stated that this wouldn't be the case?

Yeah, I can see how that might get people annoyed and make them not trust the company involved.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 30 avril 2012 - 10:13 .

[Fast Jimmy]

AmstradHero wrote...

deuce985 wrote...
Taking money from the gamers to fund a project makes it much more personal, therefore, more people will be self-entitled.

People keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
There's no way this could possibly make anyone angry unless they actually didn't include a funded feature.

You mean, say, having an A, B, C ending at the end of a game trilogy, when it was stated that this wouldn't be the case?

Yeah, I can see how that might get people annoyed and make them not trust the company involved.

Its one thing to say a product won't have ABC endings when you buy it. It is quite another to collect money for the sole purpose of making sure ABC endings aren't given, have that money collected and spent, and then giving ABC endings. That first is false advertising. The second is outright fraud.

The Kickstarter phenomenon is just in its infancy. I'm sure thigns will get ugly when highly funded movies, ideas or video games wind up not producing any thing, after tens of thousands of dollars have been spent. This can happen in business, and it does so often. People get in over their heads, run out of money and don't have a finished product all the time.

That being said, let me direct the thread in this manner - forget Kickstarter.

EA/Bioware, how much will it cost you, in terms of monetary dollars, to implement multiple races, multiple origins and endings as varied or more varied than DA:O? Taking into account things such as extended product life span, man hours, development tools, additional staff, increased QA time, the whole works - how much will it cost you?

And how much do your projections think these things will increase revenue? Including people who buy multiple copies on multple platforms (it happens more than one would honestly think), people who replay the snot out of it and would be rabid for DLC and overall brand loyalty, appreciation and consumer trust (which has taken a bit of a hit in the past year or so).

Take the second number, subtract it by the first and what is that amount? What amount of cash does EA/Bioware think it is leaving on the table in losses (or at least, less profits)? Just tell us. Trust me - as the whole Retake Mass Effect outburst has shown - people can care very deeply about your games. Give us a chance to show you how much we want to help you be successful, instead of having it always be us lamenting what could have been, directly or indirectly complaining about the game, the series, the developer, the publisher and the entire video game industry in general.

And, in the same vein as the Retake group, fans are obviously good about spreading the word. Good or bad. Word of mouth was the primary driver of the best selling Dragon Age game. Word of mouth could propel a movement to gain financial support for features that are apparently too time intensive and costly to do again for a $60 game.

In my job, I deal with corporate level clients. Whenever they ask for something unusual that none of our other clients and none of our competitors in the marketplace are doing, we usually say "we can offer you that, but its going to take a little time to develop and we are going to have to charge you for it." In this case, we are the client. The consumer. And since you won't increase the price tag for a game that would have higher replay value and more enjoyabilty than most any other game on the market, then let us pay yout to make it. 

I don't know how to say it any other way.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 30 avril 2012 - 10:29 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

BW is rich enough. I am not going to finance something that I feel they screwed up. It's not a matter of survival. They certainly do not need a kick start. Maybe a kick in the behind to get them moving doing the right thing.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

let us pay you to make it.

Please.

[Realmzmaster]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

let us pay you to make it.

Please.

If I were EA/Bioware I would not even consider the idea of taking money upfront from the consumer without a product ready to go.  First, EA/Bioware would lose control. Gamers are going to tell Bioware what story to write?

EA/Bioware right now can cancel a project if it feels it wants to move the resources elsewhere. If you take money upfront and want to discontinue the project you then have to refund the money or have unhappy investors who just lost their money. This happens with projects in R & D all the time except the company is using its own money and have a budget for R & D. Id something is not working they can can it and go back to the drawing board.
.
If I were creating custom cars or products and I only had to please that particular customer then yes I would take the money upfront. In this case you have groups of people with widely varying ideas of what they want in the game. EA/Bioware is not tailoring the game to a particular person.

Which gamers vision gets used? How long are gamers willing to wait? How will the features wanted be prioritized? What if EA has to come back and say the game has overruns cause by the feature list, do gamers give them more money?

What happens when feature X cannot be implemented., EA/Bioware has to tell eveyone sorry that feature X is in conflict with feature Y. The list you gave us has feature Y more important than feature X so X is being cut. 

Nice as the idea sounds if I was EA/Bioware I would leave it on the table. IMHO.

[Massakkolia]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

That being said, let me direct the thread in this manner - forget Kickstarter.

EA/Bioware, how much will it cost you, in terms of monetary dollars, to implement multiple races, multiple origins and endings as varied or more varied than DA:O? Taking into account things such as extended product life span, man hours, development tools, additional staff, increased QA time, the whole works - how much will it cost you?

And how much do your projections think these things will increase revenue? Including people who buy multiple copies on multple platforms (it happens more than one would honestly think), people who replay the snot out of it and would be rabid for DLC and overall brand loyalty, appreciation and consumer trust (which has taken a bit of a hit in the past year or so).

Take the second number, subtract it by the first and what is that amount? What amount of cash does EA/Bioware think it is leaving on the table in losses (or at least, less profits)? Just tell us. Trust me - as the whole Retake Mass Effect outburst has shown - people can care very deeply about your games. Give us a chance to show you how much we want to help you be successful, instead of having it always be us lamenting what could have been, directly or indirectly complaining about the game, the series, the developer, the publisher and the entire video game industry in general.

I'm in two minds about this. On one hand, I'm wary of a situation where game development becomes even more fragmented than it's today during the "golden age" of DLC. It's also a sad day when a game company becomes so detached from its fans that those fans actually have to fund certain parts of the budget to get a product that's somewhat close to their tastes.

Honestly, I don't think Bioware wanted DA2 to have origins. I'm not sure they want to have them in DA3. Maybe they do and if they do, it's fairly likely that they will implement them. It's very clear that they do not want a silent protagonist. Why would they seek funding for things they don't want to create? (Those are things that I want, but that's not relevant)

On the other hand, if it really is only about money, and developers really want to include some expensive feature but EA is against it, perhaps there should be some sort of new way to fund the feature. This funding method would obviously have to be hosted by EA. Kickstarter isn't going to work. It's not for big corporations but yes, it's method could be copied to fund some wild ideas that devs of big game companies have. Although, this funding operation should be very transparent (more so than Kickstarter is) in order to work.

Not sure if it could work or if it's even something the developers want. If they do have too expensive ideas they want to carry out, perhaps they should pitch a new funding method to EA. It's worth a shot, but the initiative should come from the needs of the development team.

Modifié par Ria, 30 avril 2012 - 11:43 .

[upsettingshorts]

No Kickstarter game has been successful yet. They've successfully raised funds and started.

Whether or not the investors are pleased with the finished product is months/years away from being determined.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 01 mai 2012 - 01:51 .

[Kail Ashton]

Ahhhh the bioware forums, where no idea is too preposterous to propose~! and really i don't think kickstarter can help lazy programming & rushed production, just a guess