228 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

Um, about that.

Not all six years were spent moving forward. They started out making the game for an entirely different engine, for example.  It's not that hard to find DA:O screenshots working in the NWN engine.  Likewise the game was delayed even further near release because it wasn't completely ready yet.  Those were not six years well spent.

I do not think it is a coincidence that BioWare was sold, not once but twice, during the time DA:O was in development hell.  

Nobody wants to spend six years making a game.  Note:  I've heard the number fall anywhere between 5-7 years for Origins.  DA2 was 11 months.  A more typical cycle is close to 2 years.

DA3 will have an advantage over DA2 though in that it appears to have a proper development cycle.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 04 décembre 2012 - 04:46 .

[addiction21]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

It will be impossible to have a thorough and honest discussion over the relative merits of Dragon Age 2 - and what significance they have going forward - if people keep lumping in cut corners like repeated environments with deliberate changes like the dialogue wheel.

Well whaddya know.

Shocking.

and cows go moo, water is wet, and the sun will rise tormorrow. When these things are no longer true it is time to worry.

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

Adugan wrote...

I dont dislike DA2 in itself, but for what it did to Dragon Age. If BW made a new series that started with DA2 and called it something else, I would pass it by and not care. However now they destroyed the DA universe with cartoony graphics and stupid storylines. They wont go back to what made DAO good in the first place because that would ****** off all the DA2 fans.

Also part of what made DAO good is the amount of detail, it took 6 years to make. EA will never allow them to spend that long on a game, so theres that.

This^, and not just DA but the whole D&D computer gaming experience.

1. A franchise is not destroyed because you dont like it.

2. DA:O didnt have some perfect 6 year develoment cycle. Went thru at least on engine, numereous rewrites and changes and is nothing like what was first shown. There was no full development team working hard at the DA:O you know for those whole six years.

3. You can blame EA but that sort of development cycle is abnormal for BioWare anyway.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

DA3 will have an advantage over DA2 though in that it appears to have a proper development cycle.

Also that bears repeating.

Modifié par addiction21, 04 décembre 2012 - 04:47 .

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Upsettingshorts wrote...


Nobody wants to spend six years making a game.  Note:  I've heard the number fall anywhere between 5-7 years for Origins.  DA2 was 11 months.  A more typical cycle is close to 2 years.

Yup.

Ordinarily, when a game is in development for more than 3 years, it's either a MMO, a Final Fantasy or Duke Nukem Forever.

Or Half Life 2 Episode 3.

In other words, its not a good sign.

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 04 décembre 2012 - 04:49 .

[addiction21]

Who said Episode three has even entered deveolpment? *sighs*

[hoorayforicecream]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Nobody wants to spend six years making a game. 

I wouldn't say nobody, but spending six years plus to construct a game is something that only a select handful of developers have ever gotten away with, and has only been completed successfully a handful of times in the entire history of game development. The number of failures is much, much higher in comparison.

Just to give a little context, between the original announcement and the release:

- an entire console generation passed and all the technology that came with it
- Facebook became an actual gaming platform
- Mobile devices became an actual gaming platform
- Call of Duty changed the industry
- Guitar Hero (all of them) came and went

It isn't really feasible to plan for a development cycle that long. Things like the state of the market, technology, etc. change too much over that amount of time, and many of the original assumptions made at the start of development don't always hold true after so much time has passed. Attempting to course-correct over the lifespan of the project for these changes will inevitably conflict with previously-finished work.

[Melca36]

Pseudocognition wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...


Nobody wants to spend six years making a game.  Note:  I've heard the number fall anywhere between 5-7 years for Origins.  DA2 was 11 months.  A more typical cycle is close to 2 years.

Yup.

Ordinarily, when a game is in development for more than 3 years, it's either a MMO, a Final Fantasy or Duke Nukem Forever.

Or Half Life 2 Episode 3.

In other words, its not a good sign.

You forget that that Gabe Newal from Valve lives in "Gabe Time"

[Maria Caliban]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Um, about that.

Not all six years were spent moving forward. They started out making the game for an entirely different engine, for example.  It's not that hard to find DA:O screenshots working in the NWN engine.

Not quite.

They released concept work in the Aurora engine but that was because the real engine was still being built. The mock-ups were something to show the public and possible publishers.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 04 décembre 2012 - 06:45 .

[upsettingshorts]

Ah, I stand corrected on that point.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

StElmo wrote...

Anyone Else Scared DA3 will Ditch the Creativity and "New Ideas" from DA2?

HA ha thanks I haven't laughed like that in ages, there was nothing creative about DA2

[Madmoe77]

poptdp wrote...

dragon age 2 had the BEST combat system and gameplay, only problem i found was lack of 'hub' cities and (obviously) the recycled levels. but i dare say da2 had the best archer and mage gameplay i have ever played in any game!

just love the action-focused combat system.

Totally agree with this along the archer and mage lines. They actually felt active. 

[upsettingshorts]

DinoSteve wrote...

HA ha thanks I haven't laughed like that in ages, there was nothing creative about DA2

The only way that could actually be true is if it was literally the exact same game as Dragon Age: Origins.

...which is what I suppose you wanted?

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

It wasn't the exact same as Origins, Origins was a great game, DA2 was a mediocre game bordering on awful.


One of the main problems was lack of creativity, when you release a sequel its meant to evolve the series not devolve it.

Modifié par DinoSteve, 04 décembre 2012 - 08:40 .

[NasreddinHodja]

Nah, Bioware isn't known to be skittish about fan reactions. Sure their games may vary in quality, but I don't see them botching a game because they're too afraid of what fans might think.

[upsettingshorts]

DinoSteve wrote...

It wasn't the exact same as Origins, Origins was a great game, DA2 was a mediocre game bordering on awful.


One of the main problems was lack of creativity, when you release a sequel its meant to evolve the series not devolve it.

In this context:  Creativity doesn't mean "they did things I like."  Creativity means "they came up with something different."

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 04 décembre 2012 - 08:45 .

[Realmzmaster]

DAO development time was an aberration. It is not common in the industry. Only a few companies manage a development time longer than 3 years. Valve, Blizzard and Bethesda (only with TES games) have been able to do it. Valve and Blizzard have cash cows that make it possible. Bethesda only sustains a 5 year development time with TES games and not any other game series.

No other developer that I know of can sustain a 5 year development cycle for their games. Bioware's development cycle over the years has been 2 years max of 3.

Shattered Steel in 1996.
Baldur's Gate in 1998
Badlur's Gate II in 2000
NWN in 2002
Kotor in 2003
Jade Empire in 2005
Mass Effect in 2007
Dragon Age in 2009
Mass Effect II in 2010
Dragon Age 2 in 2011
Mass Effect 3 in 2012

If one goes by the various accounts DAO was in development since NWN which means 7 years. During that time as Upsettingshorts said the company was sold twice the first with a massive interjection of cash from Elevation Partners who then sold it to EA.

A five to seven year development time is not a good sign especially given Bioware's previous development cycle. So I can only speculate that with out EA's help DAO may not have made it out the door.

I think DA2 have several good ideas that can be expounded upon in DA 3. Combat being on of them. Combat may be a chess game in an abstract sense, but in reality the enemy does not set around waiting to be discovered. The problem I had with DAO's combat is that it relied to much on set pieces.
I expect in a city in a dark alley way for the enemy to come from all directions. I expect that the enemy will know the city just as well or better than the party and ambush the party appropriately.

I do not expect to be able to set my mages in a nice cushy place and let them and other companions rain down death. I expect the enemy to use stealth to sneak up to my mages and gut them without warning if undetected.

No I am not advocating parachuting enemies in full plate armor, but I am advocating paradrops by rogues or other warriors in light armor from a respectable distance. If a enemy is on a landing and drops onto one of my companions or PC I expect to be knocked down and in a fight to see who recovers first.

I like the idea of a personal story. I like the idea that it is not necessarily save the world from the Big Bad. I like the fact that the PC fails and is not the super duper all in one hero who always saves the day.

I like the idea of the circumstance dictating to the PC instead of the PC dictating to the circumstance.

I want to see fresh air breathe into the heroic journey. Sometimes I do not want a happy ending. I want a realistic ending. DA2 game sometime close to a realistic ending. Hawke walks away if Hawke supported the mages. The templars take a knee to Hawke and Hawke becomes Viscount.
So yes I like quite a few of the ideas presented and no I do not wish to go back to the old DAO formula. I am looking for a new formula for DA3.

Now all of this rambling is my humble opinion. Your mileage may vary

[Realmzmaster]

DinoSteve wrote...

It wasn't the exact same as Origins, Origins was a great game, DA2 was a mediocre game bordering on awful.


One of the main problems was lack of creativity, when you release a sequel its meant to evolve the series not devolve it.

No, creativity means the ability to transcend traditional ideas, rules, patterns, relationships, or the like, and to create meaningful new ideas, forms, methods, interpretations, etc.; originality, progressiveness, or imagination.

What you want is more of the same and what you liked. That is not the definition of creativity. 

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

Realmzmaster wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

It wasn't the exact same as Origins, Origins was a great game, DA2 was a mediocre game bordering on awful.


One of the main problems was lack of creativity, when you release a sequel its meant to evolve the series not devolve it.

No, creativity means the ability to transcend traditional ideas, rules, patterns, relationships, or the like, and to create meaningful new ideas, forms, methods, interpretations, etc.; originality, progressiveness, or imagination.

What you want is more of the same and what you liked. That is not the definition of creativity. 

No what I want is for an Evolution of the series, DA2 did not transcend Origins, if I were to play the games fresh without knowing anything about them or what order they came in I would think that DA2 was the 1st game in the series, there was nothing good about it in fact I would have thought that DA2 didn't deserve a sequel.

I am well aware what creative means and there was nothing creative about DA2.

[Realmzmaster]

DinoSteve wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

It wasn't the exact same as Origins, Origins was a great game, DA2 was a mediocre game bordering on awful.


One of the main problems was lack of creativity, when you release a sequel its meant to evolve the series not devolve it.

No, creativity means the ability to transcend traditional ideas, rules, patterns, relationships, or the like, and to create meaningful new ideas, forms, methods, interpretations, etc.; originality, progressiveness, or imagination.

What you want is more of the same and what you liked. That is not the definition of creativity. 

No what I want is for an Evolution of the series, DA2 did not transcend Origins, if I were to play the games fresh without knowing anything about them or what order they came in I would think that DA2 was the 1st game in the series, there was nothing good about it in fact I would have thought that DA2 didn't deserve a sequel.

I am well aware what creative means and there was nothing creative about DA2.

In your opinion. If that is the case there was nothing creative about DAO.  I found points in DA 2 that I enjoyed. I will continue to make the case to Bioware/EA about what I enjoyed in DA 2 and what ideas can be used in DA 3 from it.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

Well I disagree and will continue to make the case that there was nothing good about DA2.

Hell I alone did not vote it the second worst game of the year, the year it came out. pfft even Bioware thought there was no point in making more dlc for it.

Modifié par DinoSteve, 04 décembre 2012 - 09:52 .

[DarkSpiral]

DinoSteve wrote...

Well I disagree and will continue to make the case that there was nothing good about DA2.

Hell I alone did not vote it the second worst game of the year, the year it came out. pfft even Bioware thought there was no point in making dlc for it.

...they made two large story DLCs and several item packs.  Your statement is incorrect.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

sorry, you are correct, I should have put 'more dlc' into that sentence, thanks for pointing out my typo, I'll fix it now.

[ScotGaymer]

Ya know.

For the most part I love the BSN.

But there is ONE thing that really irritates me about some people on this thing. And that is the folk that constantly and consistently speak, and behave like their OPINION is cast iron FACT and MUST be obeyed!

It's beyond annoying.

Seriously.

Saying something like "DA2 was the WORST game ever! Why? Because I said so!" is an incredibly stupid and self defeating thing to say. If you want to have a proper discussion with someone then you CAN NOT say things like that.
And in case you haven't guessed, this is largely aimed at you DinoSteve, but not just you.

Your opinion is not fact.

You think DA2 was a bad game. You feel passionately that Bioware made many mistakes in regards to the game.
But that does not make it fact.

Objectively, it is nowhere near as bad a game as what you are claiming.

We can discuss the merits and mistakes of the game like adults if you refrain from presenting your view point as anything other than your own viewpoint.
If you don't want to do that, if you don't want to discuss Dragon Age and its games like an adult then you should go away and stop coming to the BSN if you can not contribute positively to the community here.

[Pandaman102]

Honestly, I've become distrustful of Bioware's marketing.

I believed them when they promised that tightening DA2's scope (single origin, single city) would result in a much more dynamic story that would react to your every decision, but it didn't. How you choose to enter Kirkwall only determines two quests, how you get your expedition funding only determines if you ever see a particular dwarf again (and only once at that), whatever decisions or quests you do has no effect on Kirkwall's physical or even social dynamics, and which side you choose to support doesn't even change what order you kill the boss in. Even on a personal level you have absolutely no influence over Hawke's mother's death, Isabella causing an invasion, or Anders blowing up the Chantry. Worse yet, the game literally yanks control of Hawke out of the player's hands and has him/her make decisions unrelated to any of the player's decisions during the time jumps.

Despite that, I believed them when they promised choices mattered for ME3 - a promise Bioware had been repeating since ME1, along with promises of no "Reaper off-switch" and "door 1, 2, 3 options". The game was great up until Priority:Earth, that much is undeniable, but the last moments utterly failed to deliver on any of the promises of player agency, gave us a Reaper off-switch (regardless of who else the Crucible winds up killing, it will always kill the Reapers) and the red, green, or blue door choice. What's their response after promising player agency for five years? "Artistic vision" and "we didn't expect such a demand".

And to be perfectly honest, my memories of DA:O aren't rosy either. I hated the DLCs, with the exception of Stone Prisoner (and the last DLC, didn't buy it so I can't comment on it) they were things I wouldn't even download if they were user-made mods. Then came Awakenings and the rude discovery that even official DLCs weren't even compatible with it - this in addition to the bugs that the Awakenings pre-patch brought about, the buggy state of Awakenings itself, and the complete lack of patches for the expansion afterward.

So, no, I'm not afraid of DA2 "innovations" making their way into DA3, because the problem lies higher up the creative chain (though I can't speculate exactly where in that chain it rests), but morbid curiosity has me looking into how DA3 will turn out. No intention on finding out first hand though, I've been burned three times, that's plenty for me.

[tishyw]

Robhuzz wrote...

If they ditch the 'new' and 'fresh' ideas from DA2, the next game might actually be good.

No more reused environments and over the top hack n slash combat would be a start at least...

This.  I'd also like to add ditching the cartoony art style would help make DA3 a better game as well.

Sorry OP, I'm not worried that they'd ditch "The creativity and new ideas from DA2", I'm hoping they do.

[Realmzmaster]

tishyw wrote...

Robhuzz wrote...

If they ditch the 'new' and 'fresh' ideas from DA2, the next game might actually be good.

No more reused environments and over the top hack n slash combat would be a start at least...

This.  I'd also like to add ditching the cartoony art style would help make DA3 a better game as well.

Sorry OP, I'm not worried that they'd ditch "The creativity and new ideas from DA2", I'm hoping they do.

And I am hoping they do not. I want to see them take the ideas from DA2 and improve upon them.