764 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

GreenSoda wrote...


I don't want to be too nitpicky, but...that's not exactly BG2 -it's a screenshot from a *modded* BG2. In fact, all of the dialogue options displayed here are out of the module ("(Hold a blade Salvanas' privates)", "So you want to get into Saerileth's pants, eh ?" etc... are kind of dead giveaways) 

This is a valid point, that this content was not actually created by Bioware. 

But doesn't that look like something that would be a step in the right direction of an RPG? In fact. Isn't that screenshot an indictment of the more cinematic RPG model and not supplying a modded toolkit? If a fan could take the old way of doing things and make an insane amount of choice available, then that would seem to indicate that the new way, which eats up a ton of resources every time any variance is added, is the wrong way. Hawke would have three ways of saying the same thing, almost alway which would result in the same outcome and which would sound incredibly out of character unless you had made the exact same types of choices previous to that. 

How is that progress? Am I missing something?

[AngryFrozenWater]

ElitePinecone wrote...

There's been nothing about it announced yet, it's far too early to tell.

I think (and it looks like Bioware is, too) that rather than sweeping claims that have got them into trouble in the past, it's far better to have something concrete to show. 'Misaligned expectations', as Dr Muzyka put it, are fairly easy when any genuine information is processed through a marketing and public relations machine more complex than the average skill tree.

"Misaligned expectations"? I wonder if deliberately spreading false information as hype to generate sales had something to do with it.

[Realmzmaster]

It boils down to expectations. The first Wizardry was black and white with line drawings. One developer decides to put color in their games. Now every game must have color. A developer adds sound effects and music to their games. Gamers expect sound effects and music in their games. No gamer wants to go back to black and white with line drawings. Rogue, Hack etc are deep roleplaying experiences if you can get pass the limited graphics. Many gamers cannot. Their expectations are different.
A developer comes along and adds graphics and sound to Rogue or Hack and broadens the audience.
Gamers like eye candy. As the technology advances gamers expect to see those advancements reflected in their games especially if other developers are doing it. A large developer would be at a disadvantage in regards to the competition.

Imagine a newbie (or someone coming back to the genre) to the genre and he or she wants to pick up Witcher 2 or DAO or ME3 (because he or she has heard bad things about DA2) maybe all of them. Most newbies would ask why does my character the warden not speak? Geralt in Witcher 2 speaks. Shepard in ME3 speaks.

You could tell them that the non-voiced protagonist allows for a deeper story. The newbie may counter that The Witcher 2 and ME3 supposedly have deep stories. You would have to describe how you can customize by choosing the appearance and gender of the warden and pick the origin. You explain that the customization requires resources so Bioware decided not to voice the main character even though it was possible (the engine used has no limitation in that regard) because of all the different speaking voices necessary given the origins.

You would have to explain that since Geralt is a set protagonist it is easier to voice the lines he speaks since you do not have to worry about a different gender. With Shepard only two voices are necessary. One for each gender. You can tell them that since Geralt appearance is set there is no real need for a character creator like in Origins.

You can explain the difference between an action-cRPG and a semi-tactical crpg. You would have to explain the difference between party based game play and single player game play.

You would have to explain the tradeoff in resources when it comes to customization, plot control etc, because of a limited budget.

The newbie is still going to ask about the eye candy. Both ME3 and Witcher 2 have eye popping graphics and Geralt speaks in the Witcher 2. The newbie may think that both of those games make better use of the technology. Now you could say that DAO is an older game in comparison to the Witcher 2 and ME3 and that the engine used to created the game is older. None of this would mean anything (IMHO) to the newbie. Why because the characters in DAO all speak except for the warden.

Now we veterans of the genre are not as enamored with all the voice acting if it takes away from player agency, plot control, choice and game play. There are different expectations. We look at the tradeoffs differently. We are willing to give up some of the bells and whistles, cinematics etc to get better game play and more player agency. We are willing to use our imaginations more and play the character we want to create, but we still expect graphics, sound and music that comes somewhat close to other AAA titles.

The times are changing and as was noted in Scrooge you either change with the times or die out with them. As expectations change so do the products.

Everything stated here is my opinion. YMMV.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 06 juin 2012 - 05:44 .

[Persephone]

batlin wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

batlin wrote...

I am pretty damn certain that screenshot is Baldur's Gate 2...

Stuck it in paint and enlarged it. It's a bunch of TNO's from the end of PST.

My mistake then. Here's a screencap of Baldur's Gate 2 dialogue:

This is A) A MOD and  So 15 responses that lead to the same 2-3 reactions are IMHO bloody annoying. 

Never mind that that was IMHO one of the most....eh....unsatisfying BG2 mods I ever played.

[jlb524]

Persephone wrote... 

Never mind that that was IMHO one of the most....eh....unsatisfying BG2 mods I ever played.

Haha, I agree 100%.

Here's a BG2 screen.



Unmodded.

[realguile]

bobobo878 wrote...

Dakota Strider wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

Nah. My Little Pony. That's where the Eluvian leads.

Hmm. Fluttershy vs the archdemon.

It is a sad commentary that anyone that is in this forum would even know the names of a Little Pony ((I am assuming that is a name of a pony, before now, I had assumed it was just called My Little Pony)).

He was referencing S1E7, "Dragonshy". In that one, Fluttershy convinces a dragon who is sleeping in a cave on a mountain above Ponyville to go away because the smoke from its snoring exceeded the amount of air pollution allowed by Equestrian law, and if it had allowed it to remain, it would have slept in that spot for 100 years, blocking out Celestia's sun behind an endless cloud of smoke.  Twilight Sparkle learned to never lose faith in her friends, who can be an amazing source of strength, and help her overcome even her greatest fears.

lol   Good lord....

[ObserverStatus]

realguile wrote...

bobobo878 wrote...

Dakota Strider wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

Nah. My Little Pony. That's where the Eluvian leads.

Hmm. Fluttershy vs the archdemon.

It is a sad commentary that anyone that is in this forum would even know the names of a Little Pony ((I am assuming that is a name of a pony, before now, I had assumed it was just called My Little Pony)).

He was referencing S1E7, "Dragonshy". In that one, Fluttershy convinces a dragon who is sleeping in a cave on a mountain above Ponyville to go away because the smoke from its snoring exceeded the amount of air pollution allowed by Equestrian law, and if it had allowed it to remain, it would have slept in that spot for 100 years, blocking out Celestia's sun behind an endless cloud of smoke.  Twilight Sparkle learned to never lose faith in her friends, who can be an amazing source of strength, and help her overcome even her greatest fears.

lol   Good lord....

ikr? Fluttershy is hardcore.

[ElitePinecone]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

There's been nothing about it announced yet, it's far too early to tell.

I think (and it looks like Bioware is, too) that rather than sweeping claims that have got them into trouble in the past, it's far better to have something concrete to show. 'Misaligned expectations', as Dr Muzyka put it, are fairly easy when any genuine information is processed through a marketing and public relations machine more complex than the average skill tree.

"Misaligned expectations"? I wonder if deliberately spreading false information as hype to generate sales had something to do with it.

Well, hah, probably. 

(Though it's not like any marketing or PR team in the world would ever say honestly *bad* things about a game pre-launch, they're in the business of hype above all else.)

Bioware have said they'd try to be more transparent in terms of where they're taking development of The Next Thing, and I think that can only be a good decision. At the very least, if they're open enough with what's in the game nobody can accuse them of luring fans in under false pretenses.

And although I didn't follow DA2's development that closely, it does seem very much as though nobody had any real idea what to expect until the demo, and even then there was a lot of hope that it didn't represent the quality of the finished game. 'Misaligned expectations' are probably... a bad thing. 

[Realmzmaster]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

GreenSoda wrote...


I don't want to be too nitpicky, but...that's not exactly BG2 -it's a screenshot from a *modded* BG2. In fact, all of the dialogue options displayed here are out of the module ("(Hold a blade Salvanas' privates)", "So you want to get into Saerileth's pants, eh ?" etc... are kind of dead giveaways) 

This is a valid point, that this content was not actually created by Bioware. 

But doesn't that look like something that would be a step in the right direction of an RPG? In fact. Isn't that screenshot an indictment of the more cinematic RPG model and not supplying a modded toolkit? If a fan could take the old way of doing things and make an insane amount of choice available, then that would seem to indicate that the new way, which eats up a ton of resources every time any variance is added, is the wrong way. Hawke would have three ways of saying the same thing, almost alway which would result in the same outcome and which would sound incredibly out of character unless you had made the exact same types of choices previous to that. 

How is that progress? Am I missing something?

Yes you can make 12 different choices available but if 10 of them lead to the same conclusion what is the point? If each choice leads to a different conclusion then it is useful.  So just because you have different choices does not mean they lead to different conclusions. The wrong way is a matter of opinion. What is wrong to one person may be the right way in the eyes of another.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Yes you can make 12 different choices available but if 10 of them lead to the same conclusion what is the point?

The point is that your character got the be the one you designed rather than the one BioWare wants him to be.

How you agree to do something is at least as important that you have agreed to do it at all.  Do you promise to help?  Do you offer to help?  Are you clear?  Are you vague?  Do you ask for a reward, or do you mention in passing that a reward might be nice.

Try to play a passive-aggressive Hawke.  Or a sardonic Shepard.  Or a befuddled, absent-minded Hawke.  Or a haughty, elitist Shepard.

You can't do it.

If each choice leads to a different conclusion then it is useful.  So just because you have different choices does not mean they lead to different conclusions.

The line itself is the only outcome that matters.  We can't control how the NPCs react to what we say.

[Realmzmaster]

ElitePinecone wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

There's been nothing about it announced yet, it's far too early to tell.

I think (and it looks like Bioware is, too) that rather than sweeping claims that have got them into trouble in the past, it's far better to have something concrete to show. 'Misaligned expectations', as Dr Muzyka put it, are fairly easy when any genuine information is processed through a marketing and public relations machine more complex than the average skill tree.

"Misaligned expectations"? I wonder if deliberately spreading false information as hype to generate sales had something to do with it.

Well, hah, probably. 

(Though it's not like any marketing or PR team in the world would ever say honestly *bad* things about a game pre-launch, they're in the business of hype above all else.)

Bioware have said they'd try to be more transparent in terms of where they're taking development of The Next Thing, and I think that can only be a good decision. At the very least, if they're open enough with what's in the game nobody can accuse them of luring fans in under false pretenses.

And although I didn't follow DA2's development that closely, it does seem very much as though nobody had any real idea what to expect until the demo, and even then there was a lot of hope that it didn't represent the quality of the finished game. 'Misaligned expectations' are probably... a bad thing. 

I followed DA2 development and knew exactly what was coming. I knew the direction was changing. I did not know if I was going to like the change or not. DAO was a change from BG1 & 2. Some of the changes I liked others I did not. I played the demo for DA2. I like it. So I bought the game. I knew exactly what I was getting. I also knew given the short development time some corners were cut.
Re-used areas I had seen before. DAO used them. It was not as obvious as DA2. Act 3 with the two boss fights for a pro Hawke mage was not necessary. The highlight Acts in both DAO and DA2 was Act 2. Both Act 3's were anti-climatic in my opinion. No surprises for me with DA2.

[Realmzmaster]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Yes you can make 12 different choices available but if 10 of them lead to the same conclusion what is the point?

The point is that your character got the be the one you designed rather than the one BioWare wants him to be.

How you agree to do something is at least as important that you have agreed to do it at all.  Do you promise to help?  Do you offer to help?  Are you clear?  Are you vague?  Do you ask for a reward, or do you mention in passing that a reward might be nice.

Try to play a passive-aggressive Hawke.  Or a sardonic Shepard.  Or a befuddled, absent-minded Hawke.  Or a haughty, elitist Shepard.

You can't do it.

If each choice leads to a different conclusion then it is useful.  So just because you have different choices does not mean they lead to different conclusions.

The line itself is the only outcome that matters.  We can't control how the NPCs react to what we say.

Here we will have to agree to disagree. To me a difference that makes no difference is no difference. You can simply boil those ten choices down to one. I am a believer in the KISS method.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 06 juin 2012 - 06:20 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Here we will have to agree to disagree. To me a difference that makes no difference is no difference. You can simply boil those ten choices down to one.

My point is that there is a difference.  The difference is both what your character says and what the associated NPC reaction means.

If the NPC says exactly the same thing is response to two significantly different PC lines, then those two NPC reactions are different.  In one case, the NPC is reactiong favourably to an earnest promise, while in the other he's reacting favourably to a snide comment, that tells us different things about the NPC.  That will produce a different PC reaction yet again.

Within any given playthrough, your character does not know how the NPC would have responded to something different.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

I followed DA2 development and knew exactly what was coming. I knew the direction was changing. I did not know if I was going to like the change or not. DAO was a change from BG1 & 2. Some of the changes I liked others I did not. I played the demo for DA2. I like it. So I bought the game. I knew exactly what I was getting. I also knew given the short development time some corners were cut.

Re-used areas I had seen before. DAO used them. It was not as obvious as DA2. Act 3 with the two boss fights for a pro Hawke mage was not necessary. The highlight Acts in both DAO and DA2 was Act 2. Both Act 3's were anti-climatic in my opinion. No surprises for me with DA2.

Whenever BioWare announces new features, I can see how they might work, and I can see how they might fail.  I feared unnecessary railroading in DAO when the Origins were announced, and some of that was there, but it wasn't nearly as bad as I'd feared.

Nearly every aspect of DA2 worked out as badly as I could have imagined, and in some cases considerably worse that even my imagined worst-case.  Even the aspects of DA2 I expected would be good - I loved the idea of the framed narrative and unreliable narrator, and I still do - didn't work well within this particular game.

Some specific details were well done.  DA2's level design was horribly corridor-y, with only narrow paths to follow.  This wasn't good.  However, this was mitigated somewhat by the detail of the areas, plus those corridors tended to criss-cross creating a labyrinthine quality.  That was excellent, and very nearly redeemed the corridors.  but then, as the areas were reused, sections of the levels would be blocked of by featureless grey walls.  There was no reason for this.  Simply leaving the rest of the level open, even if it didn't contain any other content, would have been better.

So DA2's level design was a poor idea, brilliantly executed, and then thoughtlessly ruined.

And there was no way to see all of that without playing the game.

[Realmzmaster]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Here we will have to agree to disagree. To me a difference that makes no difference is no difference. You can simply boil those ten choices down to one.

My point is that there is a difference.  The difference is both what your character says and what the associated NPC reaction means.

If the NPC says exactly the same thing is response to two significantly different PC lines, then those two NPC reactions are different.  In one case, the NPC is reactiong favourably to an earnest promise, while in the other he's reacting favourably to a snide comment, that tells us different things about the NPC.  That will produce a different PC reaction yet again.

Within any given playthrough, your character does not know how the NPC would have responded to something different.

To me it represents an illusion of choice that has no effect on the outcome. If the choices all have the same effect on the outcome, it is not a choice in my mind. It is an exercise in illusion. 

[Uccio]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Ukki wrote...
I do and I have similar backround. Though I have not bought ME3 (and probably will not ever), also replayed DA2 more than once (mostly out of boredom ).

Excellent!  Now my follow up question:  What constitutes a typical gamer? 

Well that is a bit more tricky question. I tend to think however that it´s not how much we are being typical players but what we as players expect from certain producers. I play all kinds of games like we all do, I even play fps (Red Orchestra being my favorite in that genre).  However, I myself have allways enjoyed Bioware games as rpg´s. I know there are many opinions about what constitutes as a rpg. One comparison could be that opinions of what is a good rpg are like snow flakes. Even there are no two alike the one thing common with all the snow flakes is that they thrive in zero temperature. As it happens when temperature comes close to 0C snow starts to melt. 
Somewhere there was that invisible 0C line that Bio allmost crossed causing many gamers to not to buy the DA2 or feel that there was something wrong with the game itself (what ever was the individual reason). For these gamers DAO represented more of the rpg which they were looking for and DA2 did not.

Bioware makes good rpg´s. I think thats Bio´s cup of tea. However, if Bio wants to make action or even fps games they obviously should go for it. But, what they should do is make it clear from the start that those games are no longer rpg´s. Not mix game series like DA to action based games in order to bring in more customers. Make DA games as rpg´s for rpg gamers and other games for action or even fps fans. Everyone wins.

ps. Sorry for the delay, I hail from the other side of the pond so I am in different time zone.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

To me it represents an illusion of choice that has no effect on the outcome. If the choices all have the same effect on the outcome, it is not a choice in my mind. It is an exercise in illusion. 

What is the point of the game?

I think the point of the game is to play my character.  As such, having more options is very nearly a universal good in and of itself.

If you think the point of the game is to pick your way through the pre-written story, then yes only the outcomes would matter.

We don't disagree about how choice works.  We disagree about what it is we are choosing.

[AndrahilAdrian]

ElitePinecone wrote...

batlin wrote...

"Player agency" isn't what I meant. I don't know why I said that, but what I described was player expression. In a game like Baldur's Gate there was rarely a conversation that you could not resolve exactly the way you wanted to, because the number of options were so great. Same with the freedom in how you could complete quests, how you handle your relationships with your companions, how it never forced you into inaction, etc etc etc.

It's fine to wax nostalgic about older RPGs but you can't compare the storytelling equally when modern games demand such intensive investment of resources in dialogue budgets, cinematics, animation, etc. 

Like devs have often said: customers on forums can write pie-in-the-sky rants about how there should be hundreds of options in every situation with customisable cutscenes and a new graphics engine and a pony, and that's fine because we're not expected to understand the realities of limited budgets and just how difficult it is to actually make a game.

(Although I do think devs should talk more about budgetary/time constraints, if only because fans with unconstrained expectations tend to get crushingly disappointed.)

But expecting complete freedom to compete quests the way you want *and* handle companion relationships in a dozen ways *and* have agency in every situation *and* have masses of options in persuading/intimidating/coercing/interacting with people is totally unrealistic, even naive. It's fine for games where dialogue is largely text, but every separate line requires paying the voice actors more, coding more plot tags, recording more animations, perhaps making more cutscenes, etc. Origins could offer six or eight responses per conversation choice because the Warden never said anything. Doing the same for Hawke would require a huge dialogue budget. 

Could games like DA2 do it better? Certainly. I hope they do, in the future. But developers only have a certain amount of zots, and making modern games uses so many more of them than they did ten years ago. People have suggested a return to a silent DAO-style protagonist, and Bioware have pretty firmly said that they aren't going to do it because it fits their storytelling to have the PC with a voice. 

Advances in technology grant devs MORE creative freedom, not less. Basic economics. If bioware wanted to make a game with a complex branching story, new technology would help them, not stop them.

[AkiKishi]

AndrahilAdrian wrote...
Advances in technology grant devs MORE creative freedom, not less. Basic economics. If bioware wanted to make a game with a complex branching story, new technology would help them, not stop them.

Unfortunately not. Never had to worry much about graphics for example. I'm no artist but even I could manage the graphics from the older games. Everything is now very specialised. For example if you wanted to make a NWN module you could knock one out in quite a short time. Once you have to start employing people to say every word, that's a completely different thing. On top of that everything has a cost associated with it. Typing 12 responses is quite a bit cheaper than having someone voice them.

[Realmzmaster]

AndrahilAdrian wrote...

Snip 
Advances in technology grant devs MORE creative freedom, not less. Basic economics. If bioware wanted to make a game with a complex branching story, new technology would help them, not stop them.

Depends on how the technology is used. Complete vocie acting, cinematics and photo realistic graphics  require more resources. Technology makes it possible but does not necessarily lower the cost of doing it it which affects what resources are left for other parts of the game given a limited budget.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 06 juin 2012 - 08:00 .

[Merci357]

There are tons of "old school" lickstarter projects. I'm looking forward to Wasteland 2, Shadowrun Returns, Dead State, The Banner Saga, Legends of Eisenwald. Obviously there is demand for these kind of games. So why is it that the big developers use their formulaic and risk averse approach?

The guys of Stoic Games (former BioWare employees that work on The Banner Saga) explained it in an interview quite well.

I'll post two quotes here, click the link above for the full interview.

One of the terms you hear thrown around a lot when you’re working for a big publisher is opportunity cost.” In simple terms, this just means that if a publisher wants to release a product within “X” amount of time with “Y” budget, the decision of what that project will be depends entirely on what will make the most profit. They’ll look at all of their options and say “this one is the most profitable,” or has the most profit potential. Lesser options are pushed aside, or delayed indefinitely.

They’re trying to make money, and I really don’t blame them. You have to produce something that makes a profit for the publisher, yourself, and funds the publisher’s other products. A niche product selling 100,000 copies of a $10 game won’t do that. They need to shoot for thirty million copies of a $60 game, and turn-based viking strategy ain’t gonna cut it.

And that's the problem with the gaming industry right now. You have the very formulaic AAA games (copy CoD, Gears, Uncharted), that are everything but innovative. The whole industry is saturated with sequels of tried and true games, just look at the latest E3. How many RPG were even announced or shown there?

So, in short, DA3 will appeal to a wider audience as well. I don't like it, but it looks like the developers simply have to do it when producing a AAA game.

[batlin]

GreenSoda wrote...

I don't want to be too nitpicky,
but...that's not exactly BG2 -it's a screenshot from a *modded* BG2. In
fact, all of the dialogue options displayed here are out of the module
("(Hold a blade Salvanas' privates)", "So you want to get into
Saerileth's pants, eh ?" etc... are kind of dead giveaways) 

My mistake again then. The POINT of the initial picture was that Dragon Age 2 is lacking in dialogue options, even compared to Dragon Age: Origins.

ElitePinecone wrote...

But expecting complete freedom to compete quests the way you want *and* handle companion relationships in a dozen ways *and* have agency in every situation *and* have masses of options in persuading/intimidating/coercing/interacting with people is totally unrealistic, even naive.

Dragon Age Origins did all that better than DA2, so why is prefering more of that than less unrealistic or naive?

Modifié par batlin, 06 juin 2012 - 08:56 .

[batlin]

Merci357 wrote...

There are tons of "old school" lickstarter projects. I'm looking forward to Wasteland 2, Shadowrun Returns, Dead State, The Banner Saga, Legends of Eisenwald. Obviously there is demand for these kind of games. So why is it that the big developers use their formulaic and risk averse approach?

The guys of Stoic Games (former BioWare employees that work on The Banner Saga) explained it in an interview quite well.

I'll post two quotes here, click the link above for the full interview.

One of the terms you hear thrown around a lot when you’re working for a big publisher is opportunity cost.” In simple terms, this just means that if a publisher wants to release a product within “X” amount of time with “Y” budget, the decision of what that project will be depends entirely on what will make the most profit. They’ll look at all of their options and say “this one is the most profitable,” or has the most profit potential. Lesser options are pushed aside, or delayed indefinitely.

They’re trying to make money, and I really don’t blame them. You have to produce something that makes a profit for the publisher, yourself, and funds the publisher’s other products. A niche product selling 100,000 copies of a $10 game won’t do that. They need to shoot for thirty million copies of a $60 game, and turn-based viking strategy ain’t gonna cut it.

And that's the problem with the gaming industry right now. You have the very formulaic AAA games (copy CoD, Gears, Uncharted), that are everything but innovative. The whole industry is saturated with sequels of tried and true games, just look at the latest E3. How many RPG were even announced or shown there?

So, in short, DA3 will appeal to a wider audience as well. I don't like it, but it looks like the developers simply have to do it when producing a AAA game.

First, obviously publishers are going to choose the option that makes them the most money. Second, however, brand loyalty is a big thing in economics. Hell, it's most of what keeps companies like Apple afloat. Why the hell would EA, a big successful game publisher, be seemingly completely oblivious to this concept? Do they really think DA3 will get anywhere NEAR the amount of initial sales DA2 did thanks to how disappointed so many people were with it? All they did by cheaping out on production of DA2 was ensure that they will lose out on sales in the DA franchise in the future, and probably won't see the kind of sales DA:O got for awhile.

I mean, jeez, it's almost like EA actually isn't that well-managed of a company and is only successful because they got licenses from all the professional sports leagues a long time ago which rocketed them into success regardless of how well they actually did their job...

Wasn't the point of Bioware moving to EA so that Bioware wouldn't have to worry about resources being as much of a hinderance anymore?

Modifié par batlin, 06 juin 2012 - 09:07 .

[hussey 92]

Considering most of the CoD fanbase never even touched DA2, I hope Bioware has a new appreciation for their core fans.

[Realmzmaster]

The idea of Bioware selling itself to EA was so that Bioware would not have to worry about raising the money upfront for a project. That does not mean that there would be no budget or unlimited resources.

Many defunct companies died because they could not get funding for their next project. The most recent example being 38 Studios which failed to live up to the promises made to Rhode Island and had an investor pull out to the tune of $35 million.

A well managed company requires making a profit. Companies not making a profit no matter how good their games are not well managed.

Goodwill and reputation are very important, but do not mean anything if the business is gone except as a nice memory.