764 réponses à ce sujet

[ElitePinecone]

wsandista wrote...

I don't think anyone disagrees that DA2 didn't have a long enough dev time.

However, why should we expect less complexity? I mean there are costs for certain features, but what has to be cut to pay for those features? Is what is going to be cut something a significant percentage wants?

None of us are developers or know the specifics of game dev costs, but I'd expect that diverging narratives in a game with fully-voiced digital actors, professionally-designed cinematics and with all the little details of polished environments is far more expensive than a game with a silent protagonist, reused environments and static cutscenes that aren't unique to every conversation. 

When it costs x amount of zots to pay for voice acting, cutscenes and environments for unique branching plot paths, developers (I would think) can't justify spending huge amounts of money on content than almost nobody would ever see. They do it, to a certain extent, but they have to balance the benefits of providing players with choice against the costs of actually designing it in time and money. 

batlin wrote...

And considering Skyrim was in development for 4 years while DA2 was in development for 1.5, so far Skyrim sold over 8200 copies per day of development while Dragon Age 2 only sold 3600 per day.

I don't know what that tells you, but clearly in this case, emphasis on quality and catering to your core fanbase is the superior business model. 

 

No.

You don't know the individual budgets, team sizes, marketing costs, returns from DLC, percentage of sales from retailers... comparing 'time in development' to 'units sold' is a useless statistic unless you know the development costs and revenue made. We don't know, and we won't ever know, because studios don't release that information. 

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

 Then I suggest minimize cutscenes conversation. It has no real value except to "watch" character's response to each other.. Note that I do not suggest to discard the use of voice protagonist. I'm quite happy with male/female voice themselves. I'm not happy with how the voice is expressed and how the animated PC actors act. There're rarely sarcastic remarks or passive-aggresive type tone and the cutscene's PC actor rarely match my character's personality in term of facial expression, body language and emotion. It doesn't mean cutscene conversation is "bad". Cutscene conversation can be quite helpful in some cases like when PC is giving final speech. I don't expect to input every line while making important farewell/final speech near the endgame.      

 

This might be popular among a segment of die-hard RPG fans on these forums, but it's not something Bioware have ever said they're considering. I think if you're hoping that cutscenes will be disregarded in the future in favour of the player imagining the tone and delivery of dialogue, you're going to be disappointed. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

ElitePinecone wrote...

This might be popular among a segment of die-hard RPG fans on these forums, but it's not something Bioware have ever said they're considering. I think if you're hoping that cutscenes will be disregarded in the future in favour of the player imagining the tone and delivery of dialogue, you're going to be disappointed.

I'm well aware BioWare intends to voice the PC in the immediate future, but I will continue to advance the position that voicing the PC is a waste of resources and, beyond not being valuable, actually harms the game.

I think there are ways to voice the PC better than they've done it so far in DA2 or the ME games, and I want them to try to improve upon it, but until I see a game with a voiced PC that offers me the same level of control over my character as BioWare's silent PC games do, I will remain stalwart in my defense of the silent protagonist.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

ElitePinecone wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

 Then I suggest minimize cutscenes conversation. It has no real value except to "watch" character's response to each other.. Note that I do not suggest to discard the use of voice protagonist. I'm quite happy with male/female voice themselves. I'm not happy with how the voice is expressed and how the animated PC actors act. There're rarely sarcastic remarks or passive-aggresive type tone and the cutscene's PC actor rarely match my character's personality in term of facial expression, body language and emotion. It doesn't mean cutscene conversation is "bad". Cutscene conversation can be quite helpful in some cases like when PC is giving final speech. I don't expect to input every line while making important farewell/final speech near the endgame.      

 

This might be popular among a segment of die-hard RPG fans on these forums, but it's not something Bioware have ever said they're considering. I think if you're hoping that cutscenes will be disregarded in the future in favour of the player imagining the tone and delivery of dialogue, you're going to be disappointed. 

BioWare said they're not considering to remove voiced protagonist which isn't my point. I don't recall they ever said not considering anything else. I didn't suggest to disregard either as I already acknowldge the importance of cutscene conversation like final speech. I only suggested to minimize the use of conversation cutscene. I'm quite impressed with other cutscenes like actions or event cutscenes.      

[wsandista]

ElitePinecone wrote...

wsandista wrote...

I don't think anyone disagrees that DA2 didn't have a long enough dev time.

However, why should we expect less complexity? I mean there are costs for certain features, but what has to be cut to pay for those features? Is what is going to be cut something a significant percentage wants?

None of us are developers or know the specifics of game dev costs, but I'd expect that diverging narratives in a game with fully-voiced digital actors, professionally-designed cinematics and with all the little details of polished environments is far more expensive than a game with a silent protagonist, reused environments and static cutscenes that aren't unique to every conversation. 

Both had reused environments, but DA2 was much worse in this regard. No one is arguing that any of the things you mentioned are cheaper. What people are arguing over is "are those features really worth it?".

When it costs x amount of zots to pay for voice acting, cutscenes and environments for unique branching plot paths, developers (I would think) can't justify spending huge amounts of money on content than almost nobody would ever see. They do it, to a certain extent, but they have to balance the benefits of providing players with choice against the costs of actually designing it in time and money.

Well DA2 definitely skipped on branching plot paths and environments.

DA2 also cut out race selection. I would argue that the absence of race selection is one of DA2's greatest failings, especially if you take into account the voiced PC. Those two factors homogenize the PC.

Were the new features in DA2 a good tradeoff for the features that were missing?

[batlin]

ElitePinecone wrote...

No.

You don't know the individual budgets, team sizes, marketing costs, returns from DLC, percentage of sales from retailers... comparing 'time in development' to 'units sold' is a useless statistic unless you know the development costs and revenue made. We don't know, and we won't ever know, because studios don't release that information.

Give me a break. Even if they put half the budget per day of development of DA2 than Bethesda did for Skyrim signs would still point to Skyrim being a bigger success. I mean, Dragon Age 2 looks cheap, but not THAT cheap.

[ElitePinecone]

wsandista wrote...
What people are arguing over is "are those features really worth it?".
...
Were the new features in DA2 a good tradeoff for the features that were missing?

Sure, and it's a fine debate to have in a forum like this. I'm sure if you polled the BSN there'd be overwhelming support for more player choices, fewer reused environments, etc. 

That doesn't necessarily mean Bioware can do much about it. 

If a corporate overlord says "here, Executive Prouducer, you have z months and x zots, go make a game", they make a game. If that involves cutting down on customisation options because it's too hard, expensive or time-consuming, that's what it involves. 

Do I hope The Next Thing combines the cinematic presentation of DA2 with a lot of more the depth Origins had with narrative branches and conversation depth, or protagonist customisation? Of course. But 'misalignments of expectations' are as much about consumers/fans being completely unreasonable as they are about developers making exaggerated or disingenous marketing nonsense statements. 

Someone, at some point, made the decision that cinematic storytelling was where the company wanted to go. As consumers we can definitely say we don't like it (and many do, on this forum), or choose not to buy the game. But until it becomes sufficiently unprofitable to make games this way, or demand dries up, they'll keep making them. Presumably it's seen as a good business decision to make *these* kinds of games, and not another kind. 

(I do question the business sense of churning out a sequel to Origins in under two years to pretty underwhelming reviews and customer reaction, but... I don't think we'll ever really know what happened there.)

[Morroian]

rapscallioness wrote...

And I didn't think I had to spell out the reasons I liked ME2 For Replay Value. That should be obvious. Whether I upgraded Normandy, or not. Who I chose for the final missions. When I did the final mission. All these had repercussions.
[...]
As far as liking them in general, they were both good games, imo. But I was talking about replay value.

I've played DA2 5 times but ME2 only once. Vormaerin is right regarding the choices in ME2 they're not separate paths so much as if you don't play the game a certain way there will be repercussions. Even though I haven't replayed it the replay value to me is in the different classes.

[AkiKishi]

Dakota Strider wrote...

In regards to the OP: In an effort to appeal to a wider audience, perhaps EA should have the next Medal of Honor game have features that allow soldiers to take time to decorate their foxholes like in a Sims game. It can change the rules of football, for the Madden series, and allow the teams to use fireballs and summoned monsters (I might actually play it then), And it could introduce aliens destroying the neighborhood in a Sims game.

Why won't they do this? Because it would tick off their customer base that follow those games. So why does the Bioware division insist that its fantasy Role Playing Games turn into a hybrid with features of action games and shooters? If you do not keep your base happy, how can you expect to attract more players? Outsiders will see that the once loyal fanbase are not happy, and avoid your product. Conversely, if you market to your base, and keep them pleased, outsiders will take a chance to try your product, to see why so many people buy it over and over and are happy with it.

FIFA would never allow it anyway. Games Workshop did a take on American Football called Bloodbowl (had a couple of games) which was kinda fun.

It did not help that DA2 was in fact crap and not the sort of game that would draw anyone out of their comfort zone.

[AshenSugar]

My feelings on thsi matter is that yes they will try and 'appeal to a wider audience'. The slick EA marketing executives who make these kind of decisions probably have absolutely no interest whatsoever in video games per-say, regarding them simply as generic 'product', whose function revolves entirely around maximising corporate profits.

The content, theme and details of the game are of little interest other than a means of adding high-yield saleability to the 'product'. From this perspective it makes perfect sense to try and make the game as appealing to the widest possible market, rather than a 'niche' market of RPG fans.

Most likely right now, these people are studying what's popular at the moment, and brainstorming ideas that aim to emulate these popular products. The perceived short attention spans of many new players will be heavily catered for, and efforts will increasingly made to reduce complexity and provide as much instant gratification as possible via 'streamlining', 'accessibility, 'convenience' and 'super cool effects'.

What I personally believe we'll end up with is a basic linear Mass Effect 3 template, overlaid with a quick Dragon Age-themed paint job... along with a nod toward other popular franchises such as Skyrim, Max Payne, CoD and Diablo III.

In other words a few more open-worldy outdoor maps will be thrown into the game, along with a heavily streamlined combat system, and a revamp of the talent tree system, with limited choice, and auto-levelling of base stats. Conversations with your party will be limited to MEIII-style scripted sequences, with occasional choice-based dialogue, there will be four or five main quests, along with a bunch of Fed-Ex styled side quests, and a couple of token romance options. Most of the development attention will be given over the the combat mechanics, which are sure to be fast, slick, responsive and take place mostly in realtime, with an optional pause function for those who desire it.

.... Not that I'm in any way cynical....

[AkiKishi]

wsandista wrote...

Both had reused environments, but DA2 was much worse in this regard. No one is arguing that any of the things you mentioned are cheaper. What people are arguing over is "are those features really worth it?".

While everyone reuses things I don't think I've ever seen anything as blatant and obvious as Bioware in DA2. Blocking off routes with large concrete blocks does not a new cave make.Especially when you leave the full mini map in the corner.

[Camthalon]

For awhile when I was playing DA2, I kept thinking I was missing a switch or something simply because I COULD see the passages on the minimap.

[sickpixie]

batlin wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Zenimax and EA hardly have the same policies, Zenimax seems willing to sit and wait for the best game possible to be delivered, EA doesn't do thta.

Yeah, that's precisely my point. Bethesda continues to be one of the most successful developers around not in spite of them favoring quality over profitabilty, but because they favor quality. Quality ultimately makes profit. Cheaping out will bring profit in the short term, but not in the long term. That's why EA has such a long list of dead developers thanks in no small part to their shoddy business practices.

Anything not developed by the Bethesda Game Studios division of Bethesda Softworks is rushed at best, shovelware at worse. The stories Headfirst, Zombie/Rebellion, inXile, Obsidian, and Human Head could tell you would be... unpleasant. Additionally, there are quite a few Daggerfall/Morrowind fans who feel betrayed and have disliked the direction the Elder Scrolls has gone in since Oblivion and let's not even get into the situation with Fallout fans.

However, they do benefit from being  private and not a public company that has to answer to stockholders, unlike EA.

Modifié par sickpixie, 07 juin 2012 - 11:33 .

[sickpixie]

BobSmith101 wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Both had reused environments, but DA2 was much worse in this regard. No one is arguing that any of the things you mentioned are cheaper. What people are arguing over is "are those features really worth it?".

While everyone reuses things I don't think I've ever seen anything as blatant and obvious as Bioware in DA2. Blocking off routes with large concrete blocks does not a new cave make.Especially when you leave the full mini map in the corner.

From The Witcher, which was in development for about 5 years (giving them enough time to at least change the maps):

[AkiKishi]

sickpixie wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Both had reused environments, but DA2 was much worse in this regard. No one is arguing that any of the things you mentioned are cheaper. What people are arguing over is "are those features really worth it?".

While everyone reuses things I don't think I've ever seen anything as blatant and obvious as Bioware in DA2. Blocking off routes with large concrete blocks does not a new cave make.Especially when you leave the full mini map in the corner.

From The Witcher, which was in development for about 5 years (giving them enough time to at least change the maps):

They did actually finish them off with cave textures rather than sticking concrete blocks in the non accessable areas.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 07 juin 2012 - 01:19 .

[Realmzmaster]

Bethesda Softworks is owned by Zenimax which is a privately held international company. EA is a publicly owned company. EA is answerable to its stockholders who expect their investment in the company to be maximized. Even if Skyrim lost money (which I doubt) you will never know because Zenimax does not have to tell anyone. It simply has to report aggregate data to the certain reporting bodies. EA on the other hand has to issue annual and 10K reports and explain losses or gains to stockholders.

EA profits and losses are there for all to see. Zenimax does not have to tell the public anything.

What does this mean to gamers? Most gamers could care less. The reports do show if the company is being managed well.

A poorly managed company will not be around long. Anyone remember Interplay? Interplay made many games that meet critical acclaim and financial success. Interplay published Baldur's Gate. Creators of Fallout and had Black Isle Studios as a division. Black Isle the makers of Icewind Dale ! and II along with other games. Interplay was not well managed.

Interplay had financial difficulties. It went public and the majority of the shares was bought by Titus Software who by 2005 were out of business (another company that was not well managed). Interplay's stock was delisted. The company now has 8 employees at best still seeking to publish games.
The matra for big companies in this business is either hit games or games that bring in a reasonable profit after development costs. Given the short development time DA2 fell into the latter column. With longer development time it may have fallen into the former,. I do not know.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

They should just try to put out the best quality work they can tbh, which they have not been doing recently.

[Vormaerin]

batlin wrote...


Assorted pro Bethesday stuff

Bethesda makes games in a completely different subgenre.  Maybe the TES sold so well because it was a "Better" game in some sense.  Or they care more about quality.  Or whatever.

Its also entirely possible that story and RP optional exploration games are more popular than narrative intensive games like Bioware makes.  I don't know. But I doubt that DA2, even with the missing polish, would have sold like Skyrim.

[Korusus]

Vormaerin wrote...

Its also entirely possible that story and RP optional exploration games are more popular than narrative intensive games like Bioware makes.  I don't know. But I doubt that DA2, even with the missing polish, would have sold like Skyrim.

It's hard to know, Skryim way outsold Oblivion and Morrowind so it probably blew away even Bethesda's predictions.  Given enough time and freedom I think BioWare could release games that could compete toe-to-toe with Bethesda.  Problem is, Bethesda has the freedom to take 5 years to develop a game, BioWare does not and never will again.  EA will never...ever....ever allow BioWare to take the time they need to develop a good game.  It wil not happen.

[batlin]

sickpixie wrote...

]Anything not developed by the Bethesda Game Studios division of Bethesda Softworks is rushed at best, shovelware at worse. The stories Headfirst, Zombie/Rebellion, inXile, Obsidian, and Human Head could tell you would be... unpleasant. Additionally, there are quite a few Daggerfall/Morrowind fans who feel betrayed and have disliked the direction the Elder Scrolls has gone in since Oblivion and let's not even get into the situation with Fallout fans.

However, they do benefit from being  private and not a public company that has to answer to stockholders, unlike EA.

One, I'm talking about Bethesda the developer, not Bethesda the publisher.

Two, the amount of Morrowind and Daggerfall fans who feel slighted because there's no longer a miss chance, a few less weapon types, glove and boot armor not being left or right-specific, and so on and so forth are likely veeeery small in number compared to the people who appreciate the revamped and more intuitive combat system, the excess of quests even compared to Oblivion, dragons, modding tools, etc made for Skyrim since there's no public outcry about how horrible Skyrim is that it's metacritic score plunged into the red.

Also I do not understand this concept of EA doing what it does because it's a publicly traded company while Zenimax is not. What, so that means EA has the right to make rock-stupid and pig-headed decisions so long as they're in a misguided attempt to make more money?

Modifié par batlin, 07 juin 2012 - 06:39 .

[batlin]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Bethesda Softworks is owned by Zenimax which is a privately held international company. EA is a publicly owned company. EA is answerable to its stockholders who expect their investment in the company to be maximized. Even if Skyrim lost money (which I doubt) you will never know because Zenimax does not have to tell anyone. It simply has to report aggregate data to the certain reporting bodies. EA on the other hand has to issue annual and 10K reports and explain losses or gains to stockholders.

EA profits and losses are there for all to see. Zenimax does not have to tell the public anything.

What does this mean to gamers? Most gamers could care less. The reports do show if the company is being managed well.

A poorly managed company will not be around long. Anyone remember Interplay? Interplay made many games that meet critical acclaim and financial success. Interplay published Baldur's Gate. Creators of Fallout and had Black Isle Studios as a division. Black Isle the makers of Icewind Dale ! and II along with other games. Interplay was not well managed.

Interplay had financial difficulties. It went public and the majority of the shares was bought by Titus Software who by 2005 were out of business (another company that was not well managed). Interplay's stock was delisted. The company now has 8 employees at best still seeking to publish games.
The matra for big companies in this business is either hit games or games that bring in a reasonable profit after development costs. Given the short development time DA2 fell into the latter column. With longer development time it may have fallen into the former,. I do not know.

As you pointed out, Interplay did not go under because they focused on making great games, they went under because Titus was horribly mismanaged and wouldn't pay its developers. That's hardly an equal comparison to Bethesda.

As a comparison to Bioware's relationship with EA, though....

[Allan Schumacher]

Bethesda makes games in a completely different subgenre. Maybe the TES sold so well because it was a "Better" game in some sense. Or they care more about quality. Or whatever.

I'm curious what a Venn diagram of COD players and Skyrim players looks like.

[batlin]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'm curious what a Venn diagram of COD players and Skyrim players looks like.

I have a feeling a lot of CoD fans wouldn't like a game unless it involved online multiplayer, guns, and a voice chat to scream into. Not exactly things Skyrim is heavy on.

[Vormaerin]

batlin wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'm curious what a Venn diagram of COD players and Skyrim players looks like.

I have a feeling a lot of CoD fans wouldn't like a game unless it involved online multiplayer, guns, and a voice chat to scream into. Not exactly things Skyrim is heavy on.

You do realize that pointlessly denigrating fans of other games really does nothing to support your point?

[brushyourteeth]

wrong (but still related) topic - sorry.

Modifié par brushyourteeth, 07 juin 2012 - 07:30 .

[Vormaerin]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Bethesda makes games in a completely different subgenre. Maybe the TES sold so well because it was a "Better" game in some sense. Or they care more about quality. Or whatever.

I'm curious what a Venn diagram of COD players and Skyrim players looks like.

Yeah, that was kind of the question I had with the second paragraph of my post, that you didn't quote.  Skyrim has significantly fewer storytelling/RPGing elements than any Bioware game.   I know that in my circle of  RP gaming friends, the ones who also play shooters like Skyrim more than the ones who don't.   Of course, the sample size there is rather small and useless for drawing conclusions.

Comparing Dragon Age and TES is like comparing Apricots to Plums.   They are both the same species of fruit, but I doubt many people think they are much alike.