72 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

Maclimes wrote...

I'd prefer something more episodic.

For $40, you get the base game, with "DA3: Episode 1". It would have a full story arc, although perhaps a smaller one. Say, 15 hours.

Then, you get another episode. Each would be around 15 hours, but since the base game and engine and mechanics are already done, they could release them for cheaper. Say, $20. Think of it as a smaller game with a series of expansions.

That would have worked perfectly for Hawke, since he had a long series of largely unrelated adventures. (Would not have worked for the Warden, without some clever writing).

I do like this model, but we won't see it until the next generation on consoles arrive, if only because then wifi and Internet will be a given before the end of the next generation of consoles are over. This format does not work with a retail model, but it can thrive in an all-digital market. 

[Cimeas]

Maclimes wrote...

I'd prefer something more episodic.

For $40, you get the base game, with "DA3: Episode 1". It would have a full story arc, although perhaps a smaller one. Say, 15 hours.

Then, you get another episode. Each would be around 15 hours, but since the base game and engine and mechanics are already done, they could release them for cheaper. Say, $20. Think of it as a smaller game with a series of expansions.

That would have worked perfectly for Hawke, since he had a long series of largely unrelated adventures. (Would not have worked for the Warden, without some clever writing).

Yeah this is a really good idea.  Instead of full expansion from the main team that come out once every six months, or 4 hours content packs that are made by a small team, why not release one $15 'premium module' or 'episode' every 2 or 3 months with about 10 hours mq content and maybe 5 or 6 hours of side quests.

Sounds like a perfect combination of DLC and Expansions, because you can tell a proper story while still being released only a couple months after launch when the game is still relevant and many players may not yet have moved on. 

[Fast Jimmy]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Cimeas wrote...

Yeah, I really really really doubt that EA gave Bioware only a year to make DA2. It hasn't done that with any other franchise. I think *Bioware* decided they could make the game in a year.

Per Brent Knowles, the Lead Designer of Origins, discussion began on DA2 in the fall of 2008, at which he declined to be its lead designer because he didn't like the direction they wanted to take the franchise.  Origins wasn't released until the fall of 2009.

All true statements... but discussing a game (Pre-production) and actually doing work on a game (production) are worlds difference. DA3 is still in Pre-production, although it is apparently close to being moved into Production, if rumors are to be believed. 

Right now, they don't have the location of DA3 nailed down, if they are going to have origins or races, if they are going to have online/multiplayer or what the overall story will even be. 

So, essentially... nothing REAL about the game has been developed. So it is totally fair to say DA2 was developed in less than a year. 

[aldien]

Cimeas wrote...

Yeah, I really really really doubt that EA gave Bioware only a year to make DA2. It hasn't done that with any other franchise. I think *Bioware* decided they could make the game in a year.

I have to respectfully disagree. EA has been working with the Fifa and Sims model for years. They get people addicted and churn the games out as fast as they can. Perhaps, they did not give BW a one year deadline, but I suspect with the success of DAO, just like the first Sims game, some high level exec decided that fans would buy the product based on name alone without the correct development time.  I honestly believe there was pressure to get the game out as soon as possible.

[Cimeas]

aldien wrote...

Cimeas wrote...

Yeah, I really really really doubt that EA gave Bioware only a year to make DA2. It hasn't done that with any other franchise. I think *Bioware* decided they could make the game in a year.

I have to respectfully disagree. EA has been working with the Fifa and Sims model for years. They get people addicted and churn the games out as fast as they can. Perhaps, they did not give BW a one year deadline, but I suspect with the success of DAO, just like the first Sims game, some high level exec decided that fans would buy the product based on name alone without the correct development time.  I honestly believe there was pressure to get the game out as soon as possible.

Nah, their other big franchises like Dead Space and Mass Effect and Battlefield all got 2 years+ , it's possible of course, but unlikely in my opinion

[Cimeas]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Cimeas wrote...

Yeah, I really really really doubt that EA gave Bioware only a year to make DA2. It hasn't done that with any other franchise. I think *Bioware* decided they could make the game in a year.

Per Brent Knowles, the Lead Designer of Origins, discussion began on DA2 in the fall of 2008, at which he declined to be its lead designer because he didn't like the direction they wanted to take the franchise.  Origins wasn't released until the fall of 2009.

All true statements... but discussing a game (Pre-production) and actually doing work on a game (production) are worlds difference. DA3 is still in Pre-production, although it is apparently close to being moved into Production, if rumors are to be believed. 

Right now, they don't have the location of DA3 nailed down, if they are going to have origins or races, if they are going to have online/multiplayer or what the overall story will even be. 

So, essentially... nothing REAL about the game has been developed. So it is totally fair to say DA2 was developed in less than a year. 

sad if true, I don't want to have to wait another 2 years for more DA! 

[Maclimes]

Cimeas wrote...
sad if true, I don't want to have to wait another 2 years for more DA! 

Quoted for Truth. NEED MOAR DRAGON AGE. I'm reading Asunder, and that's helping ... but when it's done, what then?

[aldien]

Cimeas wrote...

aldien wrote...

Cimeas wrote...

Yeah, I really really really doubt that EA gave Bioware only a year to make DA2. It hasn't done that with any other franchise. I think *Bioware* decided they could make the game in a year.

I have to respectfully disagree. EA has been working with the Fifa and Sims model for years. They get people addicted and churn the games out as fast as they can. Perhaps, they did not give BW a one year deadline, but I suspect with the success of DAO, just like the first Sims game, some high level exec decided that fans would buy the product based on name alone without the correct development time.  I honestly believe there was pressure to get the game out as soon as possible.

Nah, their other big franchises like Dead Space and Mass Effect and Battlefield all got 2 years+ , it's possible of course, but unlikely in my opinion

Oh fair enough I really do not like EA. So, maybe it was BW who decided they could use their past success to rush the game and make money on name alone. It just seems odd if they had development time that they would not use it to polish the game. I like DA2, wel... aspects of it. I agree with someone on here who said it should have been an expansion.

You have to admit that the online DLC is being pushed. I think EA started that concept or was it Bethesda?

[Maclimes]

aldien wrote...

You have to admit that the online DLC is being pushed.

That's what weirds me out about their decision to abandon the DA2 expansion.

If you include Day One DLC, Origins had 7 DLC adventures (if memory serves), and 1 major expansion.

DA2 had 3 DLC adventures, and 0 major expansions, and 2 "stuff packs".

I also assumed the DLC model was the future, but DA2 had less. Is it just because DA2 was less successful than DAO, or is there something more to it?

[coles4971]

Maclimes wrote...

I also assumed the DLC model was the future, but DA2 had less. Is it just because DA2 was less successful than DAO, or is there something more to it?

Probably. DLC sales will always be less than main game sales (compare sales of DA:O vs. DA:A), so if your game wasn't so successful you're not gonna make a load of content for it when not so many people are even going to pay and play it.

[addiction21]

Maclimes wrote...

I also assumed the DLC model was the future, but DA2 had less. Is it just because DA2 was less successful than DAO, or is there something more to it?

It could simply be those DLC's that were released did not live up to the finacial expections. If DA2 was such a failure then why even put out the 2 DLC's and work on the expansion.

Just my thoughts.

[Uccio]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Similarly, if DA3 is a Bette version of DA:O, with tons of options and replayabilty, I'd gladly pay $100 for it. 

Hear hear!

[aldien]

Maclimes wrote...

aldien wrote...

You have to admit that the online DLC is being pushed.

That's what weirds me out about their decision to abandon the DA2 expansion.

If you include Day One DLC, Origins had 7 DLC adventures (if memory serves), and 1 major expansion.

DA2 had 3 DLC adventures, and 0 major expansions, and 2 "stuff packs".

I also assumed the DLC model was the future, but DA2 had less. Is it just because DA2 was less successful than DAO, or is there something more to it?

I suspect it was because it was less successful. Why pour resources into something that was ill received? BW said it was not because of poor DLC sales, but... what company would admit to that?  EA has so much success with their DLC and expansions for the Sims that, if there was profit to be made in a DA expansion, they would have not hesitated to make it. It's all about weighing cost with loss.

There is a small part of me that wonders if the DA part of BW could be completely scrapped. Perhaps, something different altogether may be developed and DA will become more about the books and I suppose... movies. I wonder how well Dawn of the Seeker did? ME3 seemed to have more focus and development. So, perhaps DA3, if made, will be shorter to go along with production time allowed. *shrugs*

Modifié par aldien, 12 juillet 2012 - 05:44 .

[deatharmonic]

Shorter/more diverging paths for sure. those 20hrs it takes to complete have the potential to become 100.

[Amycus89]

If i'm offered to choose one of two games, one being short but with consequences that matter, and another being long that offers no choice, I will without a doubt pick the first option.

Choices and consequences is the whole reason I like games more than movies, and why I like specifically RPGs (though adventure games have recently become more of an alternative for this in recent times...)

Still, DA:O was much longer than DA2 AND had more choices with real consequence. So I will in this case take DA:O any day

[Cimeas]

Yeah, do I really need a game to be extremely long? Nah. To be honest, for $15 a month I can subscribe to an MMO and get 1500 hours of monster-killing and fetch-questing, I would rather pay for less content but quality.

[wowpwnslol]

I would prefer a 60-70 hour game with enough replayability to play it 4-5 times.

[CELL55]

I don't care; so long as the story is good.
Example: DA2 had a lot more story options than Assassin's Creed 2 (a completely linear experience), but I still like the story of Assassin's Creed 2 better. Except for Desmond. Seriously, screw that guy.

[AstraDrakkar]

(ugh, internet lag)

Modifié par AstraDrakkar, 13 juillet 2012 - 04:25 .

[AstraDrakkar]

I'll take the longer game with more railroading as long as DA3 stays true to the RPG form and isn't another action game with RPG elements tossed in here and there. Oh, and please NO Multiplayer garbage.
I play DA games for the story, not the combat. If I wanted an action game, I could just grab any old shooter on the shelf. I have no problem with some combat, I just feel that the focus of a DA game should be the story. That said, the length of the game isn't the issue for me, but the format and content is.

Modifié par AstraDrakkar, 13 juillet 2012 - 04:32 .

[brushyourteeth]

Nyoka wrote...

Really long games can be a chore, especially if it's always the same scenes. As for no alternate scenarios, let me be concrete and give my opinion with an example. I can tell you I absolutely don't care about Leandra's death now. It's all "oh well, let's just go and watch her die" because there's nothing else for us to do in that mission.

Imagine a book where you read about Hawke following Leandra's trail. Even if you know what's going to happen you're an spectator, it's Hawke the one doing stuff, so can empathize with her every time. But when the game puts *you* to follow the trail, and you have to follow it even knowing what's going to happen, then you just feel dumb. This isn't a book. In games we control the protagonist, or we should. Please give us possibilities. You can argue all you want about roleplaying and metagaming, but despite everything, the fact that we're controlling the protagonist changes the rules. It makes enjoyable stuff we see in other media not so enjoyable here.

You can think alternative possibilities conflict with the story you want to tell. It's very fine if the story you want to tell includes Hawke desperately pursuing a lost cause like in Leandra's death. I understand the problem with that other quest in DA:O where you thought the most dramatic and good scene involved a death but everybody chose to avoid it. You wanted your story to include that death for dramatic effect, players however felt another outcome was the best choice. So in DA2 you simply didn't include another outcome. Unfortunately that removed player agency and the role playing part suffers because of it.

But there is a way to reconcile alternate scenarios with the ability to convey the story you want. Why do you think the vast majority of players have Mordin dying in ME3 even though there's a chance to save him? The writers had their cake and ate it too there. They had their dramatic death and they included alternate outcomes, which vastly improved replayability. And everybody loves that scene. What's the trick? Simple, his death made a huge lot of sense. His death was worth more than his life. Sadly, Leandra's death is random, nothing to do with her, no cause, no consequence, so it makes for a bad story. When faced with pointless random drama, it's no wonder people feel Leandra's life is worth more than that.

Agree with everything you said. And like Jane Austen put it:
"...but for my own part, if a book is well written, I always find it too short.”

A shorter game that offers more choices for replayability is something I'm much more interested in buying than a long game that will tell the same story and repeat the exact same scenarios over and over. That said though, I'd probably still find a game that was less than 20 hours kind of an insult even with multiple origin or quest options.

[The_11thDoctor]

BobSmith101 wrote...

I'd go for something around TW2 length. Longer epics like 160-200 hours tend to suit JRPGs better with a more fixed story.

The witcher 2 was amazing.
Though DAO had 80+ hrs and a number of paths
Nippon Ichi games have 1000+ hrs of gameplay and 60-80 hrs of story, so I dont agree with not being both.

Just have an ending for each class, or a good/evil ending and a romanic scene for whoever you romance

Ex. Mage good end: Mages win and are free, World saved, cutscenes shows girl by your side you chose, end
      Mage bad end: Mages are free, You destroy the world, cutscene shows girl by your side, end
If you are Templar, swap and replace... Simple.

[Dave of Canada]

I'd rather want replay-ability and actual consequences than play something which drags on and I don't feel like I influence anything.