98 réponses à ce sujet

[LinksOcarina]

The way they set up Dragon Age after two games, this series can go on for infinity if they wanted to. Hell, who knows what the next age will be, or how many protagonists we can have involved. There is so much potential for a continual story arc through ten games, kind of like the Ultima series, that I doubt they will stop at game 3.

[bEVEsthda]

David Gaider wrote...

If future Dragon Age games do as "poorly" as DA2, then we'll be able to keep making them for some time. This is not to suggest there's nothing to improve, or that everyone was happy with DA2, but no game's success is rated by how negative fans on the Internet can be about it... just as success is not rated by how positively fans on the Internet can rave about it. Despite how much fans would like that to be true, I'm sure.

Well, about that,.
There' something that has troubled me lately. DA3 need some clever plan for marketing (and I have little confidence in EA marketing). Because just as DA:O floated DA2 sales, DA2 will sink DA3 sales. The big effect is of course initially, but DA3 really have to live on its own merits. And it's not enough that it has merits, it has to get out too.
 

[Shevy]

Hopefully not, but at the end of the day it depends on the DA III sales. And to reach a good amount it has to be an amazing game, because I get the feeling that the overall reputation of the franchise was damaged by DA II and therefore its start will be not supported by tons of pre-orders like DA II's was. I won't pre-order this time, although I'm a great fan of the universe. So, the only way is to provide quality.

As to exceeding the "Dragon Age" I have no fear. Just imagine what happened during 100 years in our world.

[Mike_Neel]

I'd be fine with seeing the franchise continue on past 3, but I'd like to see a rap up of this current "Dragon Age" and everything it represents.

That means new setting, or same setting set in the future/past well enough to be different though still recognizable as Thedas. The great thing about high fantasy is you can span 5,000 years of lore and characters and locations without any drastic changes to the setting.

[wsandista]

bEVEsthda wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

If future Dragon Age games do as "poorly" as DA2, then we'll be able to keep making them for some time. This is not to suggest there's nothing to improve, or that everyone was happy with DA2, but no game's success is rated by how negative fans on the Internet can be about it... just as success is not rated by how positively fans on the Internet can rave about it. Despite how much fans would like that to be true, I'm sure.

Well, about that,.
There' something that has troubled me lately. DA3 need some clever plan for marketing (and I have little confidence in EA marketing). Because just as DA:O floated DA2 sales, DA2 will sink DA3 sales. The big effect is of course initially, but DA3 really have to live on its own merits. And it's not enough that it has merits, it has to get out too.
 

Of course.

BTW, just taking consoles into consideration(I can't find solid data for PC) DA2 sold less than half of what DAO did, according to vgchartz. I would bet dollars to donuts that PC data would be similar.

[Apathy1989]

David Gaider wrote...

schalafi wrote...
Of course I'd like to see it go on and on, but I imagine Bioware has a plan to make just so many and then go on to something new.

We'll keep making them as long as there's someplace left to go and more stories left to tell in the DA universe. Sometimes people seem to conflate the marketing for Mass Effect with Dragon Age's, in that they assume DA is a trilogy... but it's not something we've ever said or even suggested. That's strictly Mass Effect.

BobSmith101 wrote...
Depends on how well it does. If it
does worse than DA2 I can see them pulling the plug because it means
that people don't care about the franchise anymore in general.

If future Dragon Age games do as "poorly" as DA2, then we'll be able to keep making them for some time. This is not to suggest there's nothing to improve, or that everyone was happy with DA2, but no game's success is rated by how negative fans on the Internet can be about it... just as success is not rated by how positively fans on the Internet can rave about it. Despite how much fans would like that to be true, I'm sure.

FaeQueenCory wrote...
Technically.... there are only 100 years
in the Dragon age... so Dragon Age games have to be contained in those
100 years... and we're already in about the halfway mark....

From my perspective it might get a bit weird if we left the Dragon Age itself, yes. But, then again, Baldur's Gate II didn't go anywhere near the city of Baldur's Gate. So who knows? Plans change constantly in the game biz. Currently we have only our intentions, but no idea how they'll pan out in the years to come.

Nice to hear. I wish the team all the best and await DA3. 

Don't know why I got in my head that DA was a trilogy too.

[Kroitz]

David Gaider wrote...

If future Dragon Age games do as "poorly" as DA2, then we'll be able to keep making them for some time. 

I think you are forgetting that it did as "poorly" as it did was because it was a sequel to a great game. The Laurels ran dry and out Mr. Gaider.

[Vincent Laww]

I don't believe a third Dragon Age game will be the end of the Dragon Age series. They could relieve past blights with games that are chronologically situated prior to origins, and dating back to the first blight even. I for one would prefer to visit the past as opposed to the future Dragon Age games, considering the sequel to the first one.

[Das Tentakel]

BobSmith101 wrote...

…If it does worse than DA2 I can see them pulling the plug because it means that people don't care about the franchise anymore in general.

Honestly, I have a hard time believing that people outside the relatively small circle of people posting on forums and diehard Bioware fans really care much about the franchise.
The Dragon Age IP has a long way to go before it, by itself, will be able to sell games the way Warcraft and Diablo, or for that matter The Elder Scrolls, do.
And it’s not as if it is a particularly rich or compelling IP. It has some good stuff in it, but it also suffers from a painfully generic setting, lacks an iconic central character (Geralt, Kratos, Lara Croft) and has no ties with an established and famous IP outside the videogame world (Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, The Forgotten Realms, Conan, Dune, Star Trek etc.).

Apart from the quality of the games themselves and word-of-mouth, I think that the reputation and credibility of Bioware as a brand is far more important here. And that’s been, well, erm, a bit tarnished lately. Not irreparably damaged, but I am not sure it can afford too many, ahem, ‘controversies’.

Personally, I am not invested in Dragon Age (DA:O good but not great, DA2 painful mixed with some good, setting in general rather meh but with some good bits), but I AM invested in Bioware as a RPG developer. It’s far more important to me that they continue to produce good RPG’s (fantasy and SF) than that Dragon Age survives.

Should Bioware suddenly get its hands on the GoT franchise or return to The Forgotten Realms and ditch Dragon Age, I will neither mourn nor celebrate Thedas’ demise.

[schalafi]

Das Tentakel wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

…If it does worse than DA2 I can see them pulling the plug because it means that people don't care about the franchise anymore in general.

Honestly, I have a hard time believing that people outside the relatively small circle of people posting on forums and diehard Bioware fans really care much about the franchise.
The Dragon Age IP has a long way to go before it, by itself, will be able to sell games the way Warcraft and Diablo, or for that matter The Elder Scrolls, do.
And it’s not as if it is a particularly rich or compelling IP. It has some good stuff in it, but it also suffers from a painfully generic setting, lacks an iconic central character (Geralt, Kratos, Lara Croft) and has no ties with an established and famous IP outside the videogame world (Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, The Forgotten Realms, Conan, Dune, Star Trek etc.).

Apart from the quality of the games themselves and word-of-mouth, I think that the reputation and credibility of Bioware as a brand is far more important here. And that’s been, well, erm, a bit tarnished lately. Not irreparably damaged, but I am not sure it can afford too many, ahem, ‘controversies’.

Personally, I am not invested in Dragon Age (DA:O good but not great, DA2 painful mixed with some good, setting in general rather meh but with some good bits), but I AM invested in Bioware as a RPG developer. It’s far more important to me that they continue to produce good RPG’s (fantasy and SF) than that Dragon Age survives.

Should Bioware suddenly get its hands on the GoT franchise or return to The Forgotten Realms and ditch Dragon Age, I will neither mourn nor celebrate Thedas’ demise.

I would rather see a "really great" DA3, and rub all the nay- sayer's noses in it! 

Modifié par schalafi, 12 juin 2012 - 02:06 .

[eyesofastorm]

David Gaider wrote...

If future Dragon Age games do as "poorly" as DA2, then we'll be able to keep making them for some time. This is not to suggest there's nothing to improve, or that everyone was happy with DA2, but no game's success is rated by how negative fans on the Internet can be about it... just as success is not rated by how positively fans on the Internet can rave about it. Despite how much fans would like that to be true, I'm sure.

What a sad, sad thing for a person who creates pieces of entertainment to brag about.  

[Das Tentakel]

eyesofastorm wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

If future Dragon Age games do as "poorly" as DA2, then we'll be able to keep making them for some time. This is not to suggest there's nothing to improve, or that everyone was happy with DA2, but no game's success is rated by how negative fans on the Internet can be about it... just as success is not rated by how positively fans on the Internet can rave about it. Despite how much fans would like that to be true, I'm sure.

What a sad, sad thing for a person who creates pieces of entertainment to brag about.  

But he is right, at least in terms of profitability. DA2 may have sold much less than DA:O and may have been the subject of much anger and disappointment on the side of many players (not just diehard Bioware / DA:O fans), but it’s conceivable that, with reuse of assets and a shorter dev cycle, it was actually more profitable than DA:O.

Of course, reputation and buzz matter, and it may be such that DA2 initially sold well based on the reputation of DA:O.
Fact is, it still sold much better than The Witcher II, which many consider the vastly superior RPG of the two. Of course, the Witcher’s sales were mostly on PC, and it seems likely it will have a long ‘tail’ like its predecessor. If it had come out on consoles simultaneously with the PC version the picture might have been very different. Then there’s the fact that EA’s PR machine has more money and a bigger reach than Atari and CDProjekt’s.

Whether the disappointment with DA2 among a vocal group of players and some reviewers is going to have a negative impact on the sales of the next game is something we will have to see. The magic of the Bioware brand and EA’s PR machine can go far, but there are limits.

[John Epler]

eyesofastorm wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

If future Dragon Age games do as "poorly" as DA2, then we'll be able to keep making them for some time. This is not to suggest there's nothing to improve, or that everyone was happy with DA2, but no game's success is rated by how negative fans on the Internet can be about it... just as success is not rated by how positively fans on the Internet can rave about it. Despite how much fans would like that to be true, I'm sure.

What a sad, sad thing for a person who creates pieces of entertainment to brag about.  

I would argue that, in this case (as well as in many, many other cases) the arguments regarding sales and profitability are not ones that we start, but come about because the idea that games are a business is anathema - right up until it proves a particular point, of course, in which case those are the very things we need to be worried about.

We're not sitting here, thinking 'okay, exactly what features do we add/cut in order to make the most possible money in the shortest possible time', but yes, there is a business side to these things. It's not our primary focus, but it does have to be something we're aware of.

But if people want to keep bringing up the point that DA2 was some kind of colossal financial disaster, then we're going to keep countering it. You're allowed to see it as a sad, sad thing - but I'd argue that, if people didn't keep using it as an argument, we'd never even talk about it. Not to get all schoolyard here, but we're not the ones who started talking about it.

[Nomen Mendax]

eyesofastorm wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

If future Dragon Age games do as "poorly" as DA2, then we'll be able to keep making them for some time. This is not to suggest there's nothing to improve, or that everyone was happy with DA2, but no game's success is rated by how negative fans on the Internet can be about it... just as success is not rated by how positively fans on the Internet can rave about it. Despite how much fans would like that to be true, I'm sure.

What a sad, sad thing for a person who creates pieces of entertainment to brag about.  

Well, I don't think he was bragging at all.  I much preferred to DAO to DA2, but I suspect that DAO's development process would be untenable as a general business model, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if DA2 was more profitable.

And if you want Bioware to keep making games then you should want them to make a profit.

[Beerfish]

People are going to flay me for saying this. Probably flay me, stomp on the gooey remains and then light me on fire.

I hope they add a multiplayer feature to DA3 as they have done for ME3. (Co-op Multiplayer is actually quite fun in ME). It helps sustain a community between the major games coming out.

[Fraevar]

It's always interesting to see what happens whenever this topic comes up. For whatever it's worth, I am firmly in the camp that believes DA2 made plenty of money for BioWare - it was the sequel to one of their most well-received and popular games, after all.

That being said, it's really difficult to assess any long-term consequences from the generally negative reaction to DA2, in the critical or financial sense. We have no way of knowing exactly who pre-ordered DA2 solely on the merits of DA:O or if they simply liked what they saw in the promos. Nor do we have a clear gauge on how many people are holding off or not holding off on DA3 because of what they disliked or liked in DA2.

That being said, if ME3 taught us anything it's that the community here generally responds negatively if they feel the story is being shortchanged for the benefit of any other feature. Whether or not there's a direct correlation or not is irrelevant, but I'd hope BioWare would choose to not market DA3 on [exciting new feature X] since it seems to be whether or not the story and character writing holds up that's the crux of the matter for a lot of their customers.

[eyesofastorm]

*skins, stomps, and ignites beerfish*

[eyesofastorm]

John Epler wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

If future Dragon Age games do as "poorly" as DA2, then we'll be able to keep making them for some time. This is not to suggest there's nothing to improve, or that everyone was happy with DA2, but no game's success is rated by how negative fans on the Internet can be about it... just as success is not rated by how positively fans on the Internet can rave about it. Despite how much fans would like that to be true, I'm sure.

What a sad, sad thing for a person who creates pieces of entertainment to brag about.  

I would argue that, in this case (as well as in many, many other cases) the arguments regarding sales and profitability are not ones that we start, but come about because the idea that games are a business is anathema - right up until it proves a particular point, of course, in which case those are the very things we need to be worried about.

We're not sitting here, thinking 'okay, exactly what features do we add/cut in order to make the most possible money in the shortest possible time', but yes, there is a business side to these things. It's not our primary focus, but it does have to be something we're aware of.

But if people want to keep bringing up the point that DA2 was some kind of colossal financial disaster, then we're going to keep countering it. You're allowed to see it as a sad, sad thing - but I'd argue that, if people didn't keep using it as an argument, we'd never even talk about it. Not to get all schoolyard here, but we're not the ones who started talking about it.

I hear you and I know where DG was coming from... but I just thinks its a sad day when the guys decidedly *NOT* on the business side of the equation are consoling themselves with the notion that a game doesn't have to be good* or liked*  by the fans to be profitable.  It's just the wrong way to be looking at things if you are a creator... in my (un)humble opinion.  

* - Subjective obviously.  

[Brockololly]

Das Tentakel wrote...
Whether the disappointment with DA2 among a vocal group of players and some reviewers is going to have a negative impact on the sales of the next game is something we will have to see. The magic of the Bioware brand and EA’s PR machine can go far, but there are limits.

Exactly. If DA2 was some resounding commercial success, I don't think it would have only managed 2 DLCs. The expansion pack probably wouldn't have been cancelled. Its easy to dismiss the critics of the game as a "vocal minority" but at the end of the day it'll come down to whether its profitable. 

DA3's reception will likely lie in simply how the game looks first and foremost. Assuming its not coming out until later next year, thats more than likely running up against new consoles. That'll be running games that look like Star Wars 1313 or UE4 games possibly. Impressive visuals is the easiest way to get a more mainstream audience paying attention. If it still looks like DA2, that will shut people off right away.

And considering how some people felt alienated by DA2 and it subsequently suffered poor word of mouth, plus the ME3 ending debacle and TOR's continued struggles, and I don't think BioWare overall has a very favorable image right now. Thats speaking nothing of EA related stuff like Origin.

Its like TV episode ratings- you're always going to see a lag in ratings. If episode 5 was an awesome episode that generated lots of positive buzz, you can expect episode 6 to probably get higher ratings. Thats speaking nothing of the quality of episode 6 however, and if episode 6 is mediocre, then you can expect episode 7 to suffer for it, regardless of episode 7's actual quality.

John Epler wrote...
I would argue that, in this case (as well  as in many, many other cases) the arguments regarding sales and  profitability are not ones that we start, but come about because the  idea that games are a business is anathema - right up until it proves a  particular point, of course, in which case those are the very things we  need to be worried about.

Of course games are a business that are trying to make money. I think its more how publishers and developers go about their business practices with respect to consumers that makes people take a closer look. Does it feel like the company is respecting the consumer or simply doing things in such a way to extract as much money out of them as possible? And how transparent are some of those monetization systems within the games that are being made?

And thats when you get to EA's negative reputation, whether its the Origin boss saying Steam sales cheapen IP or how the rush to monetize everything leads to Riccitiello saying stuff like this. Sure, that might be great for EA, but that doesn't sound like its doing anything other than sucking the consumer dry. That kind of a push on features that transparently feel like avenues to monetization and  saying things that run against consumer's best interests is why EA has a negative reputation for many people.

John Epler wrote...
We're not sitting here, thinking 'okay, exactly what features do we add/cut in order to make the most possible
money in the shortest possible time', but yes, there is a business side to these things. It's not our primary focus, but it does have to be something we're aware of.

Well of course cinematic designers aren't worried about that stuff.

But just take this article from Gamasutra the other day.

For example, in examining the audience for the Dead Space brand, a study revealed that one limitation that might be preventing the  critically-acclaimed title from breaking out into the wider mainstream  in a big way was that it was just too scary for many people to play  alone. Audiences enjoy horror and thrills, but jump-out-of-your-seat  experiences are commonly shared with friends or significant others.

"That's how co-op was introduced," Miele says. "Cooperative play was the ticket; that is the key need and motivation for consumers. I genuinely  believe that there's a deep strategy that isn't just about a checklist  of, 'this game did quite well and it had co-op in it, so let's put co-op in this.'"

Now, maybe the co-op/single player breakdown in Dead Space 3 works out fine, but many of the previews out of E3 are laced with a hint of skepticism about co-op and the more mainstream friendly action focus over horror, which was already prevalent in Dead Space 2. The addition of co-op in this case doesn't seem to be something to expand the existing audience but to bring in another audience alltogether. And that has many fans of that franchise concerned. And based on that article, it seems that was a change brought about by marketing/business.

Beerfish wrote...
People are going to flay me for saying this. Probably flay me, stomp on the gooey remains and then light me on fire.

I hope they add a multiplayer feature to DA3 as they have done for ME3.  (Co-op Multiplayer is actually quite fun in ME). It helps sustain a  community between the major games coming out.

I fully expect they will. But to the notion that MP sustains a community between titles, we'd have to wait however many years to see if thats the case with ME3 to ME4. It depends on what type of MP is introduced (something easily monetized, no doubt).

Then you'd have to figure out how to make MP in DA work- it would likely require substantial changes to the combat (no pause and play) and would require a decent amount of resources. I'd be more in favor of more robust support for the modding community and feature updates to the base game like Bethesda has done with Skyrim.

Modifié par Brockololly, 12 juin 2012 - 06:35 .

[Allan Schumacher]

eyesofastorm wrote...

What a sad, sad thing for a person who creates pieces of entertainment to brag about.  

He's not really bragging about it.  A game like Planescape: Torment has almost universally massive positive praise for it, but frankly it didn't sell all that well.  It made a profit in the long run, but that was after several years.

A game like Call of Duty has large swaths of people that apparently dislike it, yet it still sells in droves, so more sequels get made.

In fact, the entire entertainment industry is filled with high quality stuff that isn't that popular, but lower quality stuff that is ridiculously popular.


There's no doubt that part of DA2's success came off the heels of DAO's success though.  Some of the fan reaction to ME3 is probably going to affect our future games in the short term too.  Though there's not much we can do about that now aside from trying to make sure our future games are sufficiently kick ass to keep people coming back for more.

[eyesofastorm]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

What a sad, sad thing for a person who creates pieces of entertainment to brag about.  

He's not really bragging about it.  

I know.  It may have been a suboptimal word choice.  

 

Allan Schumacher wrote...

A game like Planescape: Torment has almost universally massive positive praise for it, but frankly it didn't sell all that well.  It made a profit in the long run, but that was after several years.

A game like Call of Duty has large swaths of people that apparently dislike it, yet it still sells in droves, so more sequels get made.

In fact, the entire entertainment industry is filled with high quality stuff that isn't that popular, but lower quality stuff that is ridiculously popular.

 

I know all this too.  Everyone does probably.  It's just not what I want to see out of you guys.  We all expect this attitidue/outlook for the top level EA brass.  It worries me when the thought process has permeated all the way down to the footsoldiers.  It makes me wonder if the culture has changed perament and irreversible-like and whether there's a point in hoping you guys are still capable of making what I want.  

 

Allan Schumacher wrote...
Though there's not much we can do about that now aside from trying to make sure our future games are sufficiently kick ass to keep people coming back for more.

This is a sentiment I can get behind... err... I think.  

Modifié par eyesofastorm, 12 juin 2012 - 07:08 .

[devSin]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

There's no doubt that part of DA2's success came off the heels of DAO's success though.  Some of the fan reaction to ME3 is probably going to affect our future games in the short term too.  Though there's not much we can do about that now aside from trying to make sure our future games are sufficiently kick ass to keep people coming back for more.

So you've already given up on the extended cut, then (or you saw it and know now that it doesn't actually improve anything)?

Or are you saying stuff for the DA team to do? You could have done the expansion. It may not have won you any more fans, but it would have cleared up the stink eye I'm currently giving to Mark.

[Jerrybnsn]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

There's no doubt that part of DA2's success came off the heels of DAO's success though.  Some of the fan reaction to ME3 is probably going to affect our future games in the short term too.  Though there's not much we can do about that now aside from trying to make sure our future games are sufficiently kick ass to keep people coming back for more.

I see DA2's criitcism and ME3's criticism as apples and oranges.   ME3's received hate because the consumers didn't feel they got a complete/proper ending to the game for the sake of making it into dlc to purchase.  DA2's hate was over its change of appearance, main protagonist, and game play.

I'd be more worried about the perception of the series by the release of the Japanese DA film that would contnue to turn off the western rpg crowd that thought DA franchise was their game. 

[Das Tentakel]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

What a sad, sad thing for a person who creates pieces of entertainment to brag about.  

He's not really bragging about it.  A game like Planescape: Torment has almost universally massive positive praise for it, but frankly it didn't sell all that well.  It made a profit in the long run, but that was after several years.

A game like Call of Duty has large swaths of people that apparently dislike it, yet it still sells in droves, so more sequels get made.

In fact, the entire entertainment industry is filled with high quality stuff that isn't that popular, but lower quality stuff that is ridiculously popular.


There's no doubt that part of DA2's success came off the heels of DAO's success though.  Some of the fan reaction to ME3 is probably going to affect our future games in the short term too.  Though there's not much we can do about that now aside from trying to make sure our future games are sufficiently kick ass to keep people coming back for more.

Is Call of Duty really that poor quality, though? I was under the impression that it's actually a very good shooter with some narrative weaknesses, but that's not the primary point of a shooter. And shooters are the most popular genre, together with sports games. And for all its praise, Planescape was, frankly, an oddball game that was lucky to make a profit at all. A piece of art, perhaps, but from what I remember of playing it, it had 'commercial suicide' written all over it. And I certainly don't remember it as a good game. An intriguing story, yes, but not a good game.

Modifié par Das Tentakel, 12 juin 2012 - 07:31 .

[Jerrybnsn]

Call of Duty games are great for $30 if you're just going to play the single player story mode. I'm not a multiplayer type person so its not worth the full $60 to me. Call of Duty 4 is on my November wish list.