634 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

deuce985 wrote...

DA:O took over 5 years to make...and didn't ME1 take over 3?

I'm guessing not all of those years were... productive.  Especially in the case of the former.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 12 mai 2012 - 12:30 .

[deuce985]

Yrkoon wrote...

deuce985 wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...


Understood.  It should also be reiterated that  unless they're working on a brand new IP, Bioware has never taken more than 2 years on a game.   They're so consistant with this rule that I don't think development time is as big a factor in the quality of their games as just about everyone else here thinks it is.

Again, it took them less than 2 years to create BG2, the longest and  most amazing game they  (or anyone else) has ever made.


I simply don't have a clue what the hell happened with DA2.  My guess is that they were too ambitious with the overhauling/changing, and ended up not having  enough time to polish it to their normal Bioware levels.

DA:O took over 5 years to make...and didn't ME1 take over 3?

Right.  Those were new IPs, weren't they.

Ah, yes. I read what you said wrong. Sorry.

[hoorayforicecream]

KingJason13 wrote...

Ok. So, my assumption was incorrect in the case of ME3... I'll happily defer to someone who knows more and has proven me wrong. Question: was my assumption of the norm in this situation correct?

Usually, yes. The budget is agreed to and set early on. The publisher doesn't just mandate a schedule and budget though, the studio gives estimates and the publisher has to take those estimates into account. This includes budgeting for hiring of new employees and such as well. The resulting schedule is something that both the publisher and studio agree to work with. At these early planning stages, both sides can push back. The publisher can say "We want a multiplayer mode in this, because we believe we can sell an additional X units because of it.", while the studio can say "We want to have a voiced protagonist, because we really believe it is the right choice for our game."

I still find this hard to believe. My internal logic would dictate otherwise...

It varies on a case-by-case basis. Some games are built from the ground up with multiplayer in mind - Call of Duty is an example of this. CoD's single player campaign is essentially a multi-player game with only 1 person in it. For a game like Mass Effect or Assassin's Creed where they add multiplayer afterwards, it's a much bigger undertaking because there are many old assumptions that were made years before (often by people no longer at the company) that must be unmade because now you have more than one dude in the game. Sometimes you have to branch the project entirely, effectively putting two separate games onto one disc separated by UI (which is pretty much what ME3 did, AFAIK).

With something like multiplayer, there are sunk costs that must be invested that cannot be shared or repurposed. Developers have specialties. Some of the crossover is easy - a multiplayer level needs the same environment artist that a single-player level does. Some of it is not - you need network programmers and people with specific knowledge for XBL, PSN, etc. Multiplayer design philosophy is fundamentally different from single-player design, and you can't immediately expect that people just switch over easily. And for something like ME3's multiplayer, you need people working on the back end to build the databases, the item pack functionality, the special operation weekends, etc.

These concerns must all be considered at the early planning stages. The publishers don't just say "Ok, you have $X to spend, make it count." It's more like "How much will this cost? How much will that cost? How many more units can we expect to sell if we add feature X?" That's why Upsettingshorts said that there's not just one big pile of zots that the developer just pulls from haphazardly. During the early planning stages, publisher and studio agree to an overall set of features based on what the studio wants to do, how much the publisher is willing to spend, and estimates for both cost and revenue. The laying out of primary features provides the roadmap for the development, so that the publisher can look at the checklist and say "Yes, companion approval system is coming along", and "The war asset system is behind schedule." Things always change over the course of development, but it is typically considered the studio's fault if they fall behind because they are going off of the schedule that the studio said they could meet.

Basically, if the studio wants more zots for the single player game, they have to justify why it would be worth the additional cost would translate to higher overall revenue. Single player content tends to have diminishing returns. Most gamers never even finish their games. Adding more single player content may never be seen by a good portion of your audience.

Adding in something like multiplayer is much easier to justify that way, because you get some majorly benefits out of it. Multiplayer means more people are still playing the game a month after release - it retains mind share. The most significant statistic that correlates to the rate of DLC sales is the installed base. People with the game still installed are significantly more likely to buy DLC (single player and multiplayer), and fun multiplayer keeps the game installed on their PCs and consoles. And I'm not even getting into the additional revenue from selling packs for real money. Basically, multiplayer done right is simply a much more efficient return on the invested zots. The hard part is doing it right.

[TheBlackBaron]

I suspect it will be. Quite frankly, I expect that Bioware could make the game using the Infinity engine and copy the design decisions of TW2 that have been repeated here ad-nauseum, and the game would still get review bombed, Bioware would be accused of selling out, positive scores would be accused of being paid for, etc., etc.

Once you've managed to get on the sh*t list of the Internet's great unwashed masses, with little else to do but grow neckbeards and complain loudly about games they don't like, it's very, very hard to get off.

Modifié par TheBlackBaron, 12 mai 2012 - 01:26 .

[Lenimph]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

I suspect it will be. Quite frankly, I expect that Bioware could make the game using the Infinity engine and copy the design decisions of TW2 that have been repeated here ad-nauseum, and the game would still get review bombed, Bioware would be accused of selling out, positive scores would be accused of being paid for, etc., etc.

Once you've managed to get on the sh*t list of the Internet's great unwashed masses, with little else to do but grow neckbeards and complain loudly about games they don't like, it's very, very hard to get off.

Took the words right out of my mouth. 

Though I would be incredibly angry if they copied the TW2 formula... 

[ObserverStatus]

I kinda doubt it, Mass Effect 3 will be a tough act to follow.

[Sajji]

LPPrince wrote...

Blastback wrote...

Personally, I'm hoping that Bioware has learned from their recent missteps, and avoids making the mistakes they have recently.

I hope the same, but I don't believe anything will change.

The days of ME1's and DAO's are long gone, and Bioware's new style just isn't my thing.

Skyrim, on the other hand. WHEW. YES. GIMME MOAR.

I was so blown away by it that I might actually give the next Fallout game a chance.

Go Bethesda.

Put it this way-

Bioware's direction- RMS Titanic
Bethesda's direction- RMS Carpathia

My only hope being that a German Submarine doesn't sink Bethesda.

Take a good look at this post, BioWare. He speaks for me as well. I'm not interested in DA3 at all, one bit. Why? Because its basically the assumption that we know it'll be rushed, full of stupid things we don't want and so watered down and simplistic / uninspired that its mindless.

It's so easy to forecast. Why does this once awesome company just continue to do everything completely opposite of what the fans want?

You know what your once great Mass Effect IP has been reduced to? That 'Multiplayer Manifest' on the left side of this screen. Because you butchered Mass Effect bad, so bad, in fact, the only thing you can promote for a once great singleplayer RPG is 'multiplayer unlocks'.

Congrats. But like LP Prince said, Bethesda is WAY better, and so is CDPR.

You couldn't come close making something the quality of TW2.

[upsettingshorts]

Sajji wrote...

It's so easy to forecast. Why does this once awesome company just continue to do everything completely opposite of what the fans want?

Opposite?  How so?  

"The fans?"  All or some?  Which features are you talking about?

[TheBlackBaron]

Sajji wrote...
Congrats. But like LP Prince said, Bethesda is WAY better, and so is CDPR.

Haha no. Bethesda is one of the most overrated companies in gaming. I've yet to understand why a company whose every product gets more and more streamlined and more and more actionized (see Morrowind --> Oblivion --> Skyrim), and pairs this with generally **** writing, gets a free pass from the grognards around here. 

They do exploration and character customization well, I'll give them that. But Obsidian manged to outdo them with that, too, in New Vegas. 

EDIT: And don't even get me started on how their games on release tend to be more like playable betas. Getting Fallout 3 and New Vegas on the console initially was probably a wise choice, as in my experience console games tend to have less bugs than PC games at the very beginning. 

Modifié par TheBlackBaron, 12 mai 2012 - 02:13 .

[termokanden]

Why do people always have use such a condescending tone? You can post your opinion without constantly ridiculing the opposition.

As for Bethesda, Oblivion was the low point for me. I thought Skyrim was a step up, although it certainly isn't perfect. I also have more faith in Obsidian at the moment.

Modifié par termokanden, 12 mai 2012 - 02:17 .

[Sajji]

Mass Effect 3 was absolutely riddled with bugs. If fact, a main feature of the entire game completely didn't work because of a bug.

But I'm not looking for an argument. I stated my opinion. Seems to be a common one on these forums, too.

[TheBlackBaron]

greengoron89 wrote...

Previous TES titles were horribly bloated in the skills and attributes department, and some conventions (such as having to sleep in a bed to level up and constantly having to repair your armor and weaponry) just seemed pointless. Streamlining the gameplay from previous titles is more than welcome IMHO.

I would concur with this, actually, but I think there's a fine line to be tread there. DA2 and Oblivion both wound up on the wrong side of it, imho.

Also, what the hell is a grognard, and why is everyone around here using that term all of the sudden?

We're misuing it somewhat, actually, the term originally refers to wargamers from the 1970's and 80's who were enthusiastic followers of what were called "monster games" - gigantic maps, 1000+ counters, play times measured in the hundreds of hours, etc. 

These days it's just another shorthand for the same people neckbeard is used for. Some wear it with pride.

Modifié par TheBlackBaron, 12 mai 2012 - 02:23 .

[termokanden]

Sajji wrote...

Mass Effect 3 was absolutely riddled with bugs. If fact, a main feature of the entire game completely didn't work because of a bug.

The only major bug I remember was the crash bug in the Javik recruitment mission.

Out of interest, which bug were you talking about?

[Chromie]

Lenimph wrote...

TheBlackBaron wrote...

I suspect it will be. Quite frankly, I expect that Bioware could make the game using the Infinity engine and copy the design decisions of TW2 that have been repeated here ad-nauseum, and the game would still get review bombed, Bioware would be accused of selling out, positive scores would be accused of being paid for, etc., etc.

Once you've managed to get on the sh*t list of the Internet's great unwashed masses, with little else to do but grow neckbeards and complain loudly about games they don't like, it's very, very hard to get off.

Took the words right out of my mouth. 

Though I would be incredibly angry if they copied the TW2 formula... 

Great writing, great character, engine that runs great on my crappy hardware, gorgeous graphics, real C&C, free dlc, updates actually coming out still, free backup copies, free music, free artbook and an incredibly detailed set protagonist? I'm not sure why you wouldn't want Bioware to take at least a couple of stuff from CDPR. 

And before anyone mentions set protagonist Shepard is always Shepard except with out all the detail and backstory of say Geralt or Nameless One but also without the freedom and RP'ing potential of Dovahkin (spellig?) Obsidian's Micheal Thornton blows Shepard away and Hawke well I won't bother.

[upsettingshorts]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

These days [grognard is] just another shorthand for the same people neckbeard is used for. Some wear it with pride.

It's basically code for a reactionary in the sense they want games to go back to what they were as opposed to either preferring they stay how they are, or change.

Prelaunch nonsense post I made trying to group various critics together.  

Skelter192 wrote...

 Obsidian's Micheal Thornton blows Shepard away and Hawke well I won't bother.

I love Alpha Protocol but I don't understand what's so great about Mike.  He's no different to me than Shepard or Hawke, except there's less freedom to customize his appearance.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 12 mai 2012 - 02:28 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Skelter192 wrote...

 Obsidian's Micheal Thornton blows Shepard away and Hawke well I won't bother.

I love Alpha Protocol but I don't understand what's so great about Mike.  He's no different to me than Shepard or Hawke, except there's less freedom to customize his appearance.

Proactivity.

[Sajji]

Face importing of character.

A main feature of the game...bugged.

I had three freezes, three or four vanishing faces from cutscenes, sound drops during the Asari homeworld and a nasty quest log bug that put me in the middle of completed quests every single time.

I don't argue Bethesda has lots of bugs, but myself and others are forgiving due to the size and scale of the country we get to play in. With competing systems of time, NPC schedules, weather, ecosystems, and dozens of others all being rendered in real time simultaneously, its a shock how its even accomplished, let alone the 20 bugs one comes across in 300 hours.

It is annoying though...wish they could get better. Maybe even start doing betas

[upsettingshorts]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Proactivity.

That seems more an issue with the story than the character.

DA2 isn't about proactivity, it's about being overcome by events.  It's a deconstruction, which the frame narrative - namely Cassandra's assumptions about Hawke's proactivity - attempts to make clear. Which isn't to say everyone ought to prefer that, but when I think about comparing protagonists in isolation I consider things like customizability, reactivity (personality wise), and voice acting should it be there.

I don't subscribe to the idea, however, that all protagonists ought to be the same, which is why one implies when they state "proactivity" is a universally positive trait for an RPG protagonist.  If that's not what you're implying, then clarify.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 12 mai 2012 - 02:40 .

[TheBlackBaron]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Skelter192 wrote...

 Obsidian's Micheal Thornton blows Shepard away and Hawke well I won't bother.

I love Alpha Protocol but I don't understand what's so great about Mike.  He's no different to me than Shepard or Hawke, except there's less freedom to customize his appearance.

Proactivity.

One of the key reasons, at least in relation to Hawke, and if you believe that one of Hawke's biggest problems was s/he just sort of let things happen to him/her. Conversely much of the plot of AP after Saudi Arabia happens because of what Thorton does to provoke it. 

Mike's also hilarious. That can go a long way. 

Modifié par TheBlackBaron, 12 mai 2012 - 02:35 .

[LPPrince]

Elton John is dead wrote...

You may have enjoyed Skyrim but the TES series is hardly progressing into better territory. The TES series has progressed from statistic based RPG with consequences that last forever to action-RPG where there's no such thing as consequences. Don't get me started about the bugs...

Absolutely irrrelevent.

Anywho, here's my story-

I have a friend who loves Dragon Age and The Elder Scrolls franchise. She's played everything.

The two of us shared the same opinion- Origins was awesome, DA2 was horseapples.

She successfully convinced me to pick up Skyrim(back during the time when I had no plans to get it).

I did get it. It became my favorite RPG since Origins.

I HATE saying that. Nothing against Skyrim or TES, but I wanted DA2 to be that game.

And I want DA3(DAO2) to be that game.

But it looks like Bioware's headed down a path I won't enjoy. DA2 and ME3 both being major strikes against brand loyalty in my case.

Before, I'd give Bioware the benefit of the doubt.

Now? Not so much.

I imagine I will end up getting DA3. But if I don't enjoy it, I'm staying on the Bethesda boat and waving at the people on the Bioware boat.

If DA3 causes a large backlash, I won't be the only one.

If its good, then perhaps it'll bring in a lot of the DAO players that felt sorely disappointed with DA2.

Who knows.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Proactivity.

That seems more an issue with the story than the character.

Indeed, hence why I almost never take protagonists in isolation.
A big reason as to why I believe Mike is better, is because he's in what I see as a better story.

And I agree that proactivity is not a necessary prerequisite, Geralt is not that proactive afterall.

What I meant is that Mike's proactivity was very refreshing (still a unique xperience in my case) and well executed, and that's what makes him great in my eyes (my favorite actually).

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 12 mai 2012 - 02:46 .

[spirosz]

If they add MP, then yes.

They'll probably add an EMS system, fit Liara somewhere in there as well.  Who knows.  

Modifié par spiros9110, 12 mai 2012 - 02:56 .

[slimgrin]

TheBlackBaron wrote...


Once you've managed to get on the sh*t list of the Internet's great unwashed masses, with little else to do but grow neckbeards and complain loudly about games they don't like, it's very, very hard to get off.

More generalizing? Maybe you should apply for a job in Bioware's writing dept.